UW Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems

Reviews

Tags

information technology, university of washington, information management, information systems, strategic plan, state agencies, higher education, strategic planning, enterprise architecture, vice president, administrative systems, university of wisconsin, campus network, operational plan, the common

Stats

views:: 1
rating:: not rated
reviews:: 0
posted:: 9/11/2009
language:
pages:: 0

Public Domain

UW S T R AT E G I C R OA D M A P F O R I N F O R M AT I O N M ANAGE ME NT AND ADM INISTR ATIVE SYSTE M S DECEMBER 2008 Acknowledgements The Ofﬁce of Information Management (OIM) would like to thank everyone who participated in developing the Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems, including members of the Information Management Advisory Committee, the steering committee for the Roadmap project, the Roadmap Working Team and Task Groups, and the more than 170 stakeholders from across the UW community who shared their insights into the UW’s current systems and processes, and helped to evaluate challenges and identify risks. Together they developed a vision of where the university needs to be in ten years and outlined an action plan for getting there. Thanks to their work, the university has a comprehensive, in-depth view of its current information management and administrative systems challenges and a clear path forward. Photos are courtesy of UW Technology staff and University Photography. The Roadmap also is available online at www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/ UW Strategic Roadmap | 3 It is time to move from discussion to action—to commit to the investments necessary to position the University of Washington for the future. 4 | UW Strategic Roadmap Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................6 ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT .............................................................................................10 THE NEED FOR A STRATEGIC ROADMAP .................................................................. 11 The Challenge................................................................................................................. 11 A Collaborative Process ............................................................................................... 12 Roadmap Recommendations ...................................................................................... 13 GUIDING PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................................14 ROADMAP INITIATIVES .................................................................................................15 Information for Decision Making...................................................................................15 Replace the Base ...........................................................................................................18 Redesign Processes ......................................................................................................23 Enhance and Renew Systems .....................................................................................24 Prioritize and Make Decisions ......................................................................................26 ROADMAP ACTION PLAN..............................................................................................28 Information for Decision Making...................................................................................29 Replace the Base ...........................................................................................................29 Redesign Processes ......................................................................................................30 Enhance and Renew Systems .....................................................................................30 Prioritize and Make Decisions ......................................................................................31 REPLACE THE BASE ALTERNATIVES AND APPROACHES........................................32 Four Alternatives.............................................................................................................32 What Others Are Doing..................................................................................................33 When and How Long? ...................................................................................................37 MOVING FORWARD.......................................................................................................40 Next Steps .......................................................................................................................40 Workforce Planning ........................................................................................................40 Updates to the Roadmap ..............................................................................................40 Invest in the Future ........................................................................................................40 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................42 I. Current Stafﬁng Allocations for UW IM/AS ..............................................................44 II. History and Context of UW IM/AS ...........................................................................54 III. The Strategic Roadmap Project: Developing the Roadmap ...............................58 IV. Contributors to the Roadmap Project ....................................................................73 UW Strategic Roadmap | 5 Executive Summary The University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems sets forth a long-term, comprehensive plan for the future. The plan deﬁnes a vision for UW information management and administrative systems (IM/AS) aligned with the institution’s business goals and priorities. It outlines an action plan with ﬁve key initiatives to meet the enormous range of challenges the UW faces in providing the administrative systems and information needed to support a complex, diverse, and global institution. The plan provides a framework for future decision making, prioritization, and resource allocation. Most importantly, the plan positions the University for the future in an era of increasing competition and rapid change. • • have developed hundreds of redundant shadow systems to compensate for missing functionality, at considerable cost and effort. Operational inefﬁciencies are negatively impacting the productivity of people at every level. The University community cannot get the information it needs to support effective decision making. Even basic information—such as student headcount by major or ﬁnancial resources for a given ﬁscal period—takes an extraordinary effort to obtain. Lack of institutional deﬁnitions for data as basic as “student FTE” or “faculty FTE” undermines the accuracy of the information and creates confusion. The UW has underinvested in its administrative systems and fallen behind its peers. Among the UW’s peer group of over 30 research/doctorate institutions, only one has ﬁnancial systems older than the UW’s. The Challenge The plan was initiated in the fall of 2007 at the request of the Board of Deans and Chancellors, the Information Management Advisory Committee, and other key stakeholders. It addresses the following critical challenges: • The UW’s aging legacy systems cannot support this institution’s 21st century business and information needs. The University’s roughly 27-yearold systems have limited functionality and are becoming increasingly difﬁcult to upgrade. Departments and units The Process The Roadmap was developed in response to the ﬁndings of the IS Futures Task Force, which was charged by the Provost in 2006 to evaluate long-term UW information technology needs and make recommendations. The Task Force determined that the UW did not have a clear vision or long-term strategic plan for the future of IM/AS. As a result, there was no institutional context for prioritizing projects or allocating resources, and no framework for understanding how individual requests would help meet the UW’s future needs. More than 170 stakeholders from across the UW community were involved in developing the Roadmap. This effort was coordinated by the Ofﬁce of Information Management, with the Information Management Advisory Committee serving as the project’s steering committee. 6 | UW Strategic Roadmap Teams of stakeholders representing schools, colleges, campuses, medical centers, deans, faculty, researchers, and central administrators delved into the detail of the UW’s current systems and processes, evaluating challenges and identifying risks. They developed a vision of where the University needs to be in ten years and outlined an action plan for getting there. For the ﬁrst time, thanks to their work, the University has a comprehensive, in-depth view of its current IM/AS challenges and a clear path forward. Recommendations and Next Steps Discussions with the Information Management Advisory Committee, the University Technology Advisory Committee, the Board of Deans and Chancellors, and other key stakeholders have led to the following recommended approach for implementing the Roadmap in the near-term: • Move forward with replacing the ﬁnancial system. Explore possible partnerships, including with the state, as well as other options. Join the Kuali Student partnership. The UW should become a partner in the Kuali Student higher education consortium. Other founding members include the University of California at Berkeley and the University of British Columbia. Invest in high-value enhancements. Move forward with the enhancements as funding allows. Identify a long-term funding strategy to implement the Roadmap initiatives. What Others Are Doing Implementing this plan will involve signiﬁcant investment. To provide some context for the difﬁcult decisions ahead, it is useful to look at what other peer institutions and the state of Washington are doing. The trend over the past ten years has been to replace legacy administrative systems with vendor provided Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, such as PeopleSoft (now Oracle). More recently, some universities are joining consortia to develop community source administrative systems speciﬁcally designed for higher education. The table on page 8 shows what some peer institutions are doing in this area. Numbers included are preliminary estimates from the institutions’ Web sites and are provided for context only. The state of Washington recently implemented a vendor solution from SAP for HR/payroll at a cost of approximately $67 million. The state is currently considering replacing its legacy ﬁnancial system and is looking at SAP as an option. The UW has begun discussions with the state to better understand its plans and will continue those discussions as it evaluates its options. • • • Other next steps for the Roadmap include communicating ﬁndings and conclusions with the UW community and moving ahead with the “Prioritize and Make Decisions” initiative to make the governance of IM/AS more coordinated, collaborative, and cohesive. UW Strategic Roadmap | 7 • Redesign Processes: Design consistent, streamlined business processes to leverage new technologies, achieve increased operational efﬁciencies, and manage change. Enhance and Renew Systems: Invest in ongoing enhancement, development, and technology renewal of all core administrative systems to keep up with changing business needs. This includes systems supporting research, alumni/development, and facilities and space. It also includes continuing to invest in high-value, interim upgrades to legacy systems until those systems are replaced. Prioritize and Make Decisions: Develop a transparent decisionmaking process and a mature portfolio management framework. Enable collaborative projects across units. This will enable the UW to set institutional priorities for IM/AS, make strategic choices, and maximize investments. • The Roadmap Plan— A Comprehensive Solution The Roadmap recommends ﬁve key initiatives to meet the UW’s business and information needs into the future: • Information for Decision Making: Develop the common data deﬁnitions, infrastructure, tools, and training necessary to provide access to accurate, useful information and analysis. Replace the Base: Replace the UW’s aging legacy administrative systems with ﬂexible, modern systems that can keep pace with rapidly changing business and information needs. Legacy systems include ﬁnance, budget, procurement, HR/payroll, and student administration. • • Taken together, these ﬁve initiatives address the key challenges the UW is facing today with IM/AS. The UW must make progress on all of them to meet its needs moving forward. An important guiding principle in approaching this work is to invest in the best solution for each major business area, rather than commit to a single technology, vendor, or approach. Approach Banner Oracle Organization (system) Vendor Solution Illinois (ﬁnance, HR, student) Michigan (ﬁnance, HR, student) Minnesota (ﬁnance, HR, student) Indiana (HR, student) MIT (ﬁnance, payroll) Consortium Cost $ $180m $100M-125m SAP $200m Kuali U of Arizona (ﬁnance, research) Homegrown $10m plus Legacy Mainframe UCLA, UCSD not available 8 | UW Strategic Roadmap Invest in the Future For the past two decades, the UW has made a strategic decision to invest its limited resources in research and academic computing. This strategy has enabled the UW to build a technology infrastructure that has given it a competitive edge in research and learning. This strategy, however, resulted in decades of underinvestment in IM/AS that is now taking its toll. Aging systems are creating inefﬁciencies that negatively impact the productivity of people at all levels of the university. UW leaders cannot get the information they need to manage effectively. The systems are becoming so complex that only a handful of staff understands them, and it is increasingly more difﬁcult to make necessary changes. Further delay in replacing these systems will result in lost opportunities, higher costs, and continued erosion of the UW’s competitive edge. Up to this point, the UW has been able to maintain its core systems on a small and unpredictable budget. This funding model will not support the capital investments needed to move to a new generation of systems. A sustainable, predictable funding plan is needed to implement the Roadmap initiatives and support FOR MORE INFORMATION the technology renewal necessary to keep systems current. The University does not need the world’s greatest payroll or accounts payable system. It needs modern, ﬂexible systems and information to support a complex, global University that has been recognized as one of the world’s best. It is time to move from discussion to action— to commit to the investments necessary to position the University of Washington for the future. UW Strategic Roadmap site: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/ OIM Web site: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/ UW Strategic Roadmap | 9 About This Document The University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap) sets forth a long-term vision and comprehensive plan for the future of UW information management and administrative systems. This ofﬁcial printed version of the Roadmap covers: • • • • • Why the UW needs a strategic plan for information management and administrative systems (IM/AS). How the Roadmap was developed. Guiding principles for Roadmap implementation. Five recommended Roadmap initiatives and the action plans for implementing them. Alternatives and approaches for the “Replace the Base” initiative. This initiative will involve signiﬁcant commitment and investment, so alternatives and approaches are discussed in depth. Next steps, including short-term priorities, the need for workforce planning, how updates will be made to this plan, and why a funding model is needed to support ongoing efforts. • It has four appendices that cover: • • • • Current stafﬁng allocations for UW IM/AS History and context of UW IM/AS A detailed discussion of the Roadmap project and report development List of contributors to the Roadmap project The Roadmap Web site contains all this information, and it provides more detail. See: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/ For additional information, please contact the OIM Communications & Outreach group (oimcom@u.washington.edu). The Roadmap sets forth a long-term vision for the future of UW information management and administrative systems aligned with the institution’s business goals and priorities. It provides a strategic framework for prioritizing projects, making decisions, and allocating resources. 10 | UW Strategic Roadmap The Need for a Strategic Roadmap In 2006, the University of Washington’s Provost charged a special task force with taking a comprehensive look at the University’s critical information technology needs. After three months of intensive investigation, the IS Futures Task Force found that the University of Washington (UW) did not have a clear vision or long-term strategy for the administrative systems that support its core business operations or for the information management essential for running a complex enterprise. Without a clear vision and strategy, there was no institutional context for prioritizing information management and administrative systems projects or allocating resources, and no framework for understanding how individual requests would help meet the UW’s long-term needs. The University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap) was developed in response to the task force ﬁndings. The Roadmap sets forth a long-term vision for the future of UW information management and administrative systems aligned with the institution’s business goals and priorities. It provides a strategic framework for prioritizing projects, making decisions, and allocating resources. It outlines an action plan with ﬁve key initiatives to meet the enormous range of challenges the UW faces in providing administrative systems and information to support a large, diverse, and global institution. The Challenge The University of Washington is one of the nation’s premier research institutions, receiving more federal research funding than any other public institution of higher education in the country. Yet the administrative systems that support its business operations are among the oldest and most archaic of its peer institutions. As a result, the University is facing the following critical challenges: • The UW’s legacy systems no longer support this institution’s 21st century business and information needs. The University’s 26-to-34-year-old systems have limited functionality and are becoming increasingly difﬁcult to upgrade. Operational inefﬁciencies are negatively impacting the productivity of faculty and staff at every level of this institution. Departments and units have developed hundreds of redundant shadow systems to compensate for missing functionality, at considerable cost and effort. University faculty and staff cannot get the information they need to support effective management and decision making. Even basic information—such as student headcount by major or ﬁnancial resources for a given ﬁscal period—takes an extraordinary effort to obtain. Lack of institutional deﬁnitions for data as basic as “student FTE” and “faculty FTE” undermines the accuracy of the information and makes cross-institutional comparisons problematic. • UW Strategic Roadmap | 11 • The UW has consciously underinvested in its administrative systems and fallen behind its peers. Of a peer group of 30 research/doctorate institutions, only one has a ﬁnancial system older than the UW’s, only two have older student systems, and only four have older HR/payroll systems. (See UW Peers on page 34.) The Roadmap outlines a plan to address these challenges and to bring the University’s administrative systems and information management services into the 21st century. A Collaborative Process Development of the Roadmap was an intensive, six-month collaborative effort involving more than 170 stakeholders across the University. The project was initiated in the fall of 2007 in response to the IS Futures Task Force and at the request of the Board of Deans and Chancellors, the Information Management Advisory Committee, and other key stakeholders. It culminated in March 2008 with the completion of the Roadmap action plan. The project was coordinated by the Ofﬁce of Information Management, with the Information Management Advisory Committee serving as the project’s steering committee. Executive sponsors included Provost Phyllis Wise and Vice President for UW Technology Ron Johnson. Teams of stakeholders representing schools, colleges, campuses, medical centers, deans, faculty, researchers, and central administrators delved into the detail of the University’s current systems and processes, evaluating challenges and identifying risks. Divided into task groups, they focused on three key areas: administrative systems, information management, and governance. The task groups analyzed the current state of the UW’s systems and processes. They developed a vision of where the University needs to be in ten years and outlined action plans for getting there. Their work was overseen by the Roadmap Working Team, which included task group leads and other business leaders. The Roadmap Working Team integrated task group recommendations and produced the ﬁnal recommended action plan. (Details about the Roadmap project and process are available in Appendix III. A full list of contributors is available in Appendix IV.) The result of this work is the ﬁrst-ever comprehensive view of the University’s current information management and administrative systems’ (IM/AS) challenges and an action plan for moving the University forward. 12 | UW Strategic Roadmap Roadmap Recommendations The Roadmap recommends ﬁve key initiatives to fundamentally transform the University’s business operations. A detailed description of each initiative is provided later in this document. (See Roadmap Initiatives on page 15.) • Information for Decision Making: Develop the common data deﬁnitions, infrastructure, tools, integration framework, and training necessary to provide access to accurate, useful information and analysis. Replace the Base: Replace the UW’s aging legacy administrative systems with modern, ﬂexible systems that can keep pace with evolving business needs. Legacy systems to be replaced include ﬁnance, budget, procurement, human resources, payroll, and student administration. Redesign Processes: Design consistent, streamlined business processes that leverage new technologies, achieve increased operational efﬁciencies, and help to manage change. Process redesign will happen hand-in-hand with all system replacement and upgrade projects. Enhance and Renew Systems: Invest in ongoing enhancement, development, and technology renewal of core administrative systems to keep pace with changing business needs. Prioritize and Make Decisions: Develop a transparent decision-making process and a mature portfolio management framework that enables the UW to set institutional priorities, make strategic choices, and maximize its investments. Provide the support structures necessary to enable collaborative projects across UW units. • • • • UW Strategic Roadmap | 13 Guiding Principles An important part of the planning effort was the development of a series of Guiding Principles that articulate key values and directions that will guide the implementation of the Roadmap and future IM/AS decision making. The Guiding Principles provide a vital framework for all levels of decision making about IM/AS strategies, directions, and implementation across the University. The Guiding Principles were developed by the Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC) with input from stakeholders involved in the Roadmap effort. The development included a review of guiding principles from peer institutions and of relevant literature on the topic. A ﬁnal version was adopted by I-MAC in May 2008. The Guiding Principles will be evaluated annually as part of the Roadmap review process to ensure they remain relevant and meaningful. The Guiding Principles cover three areas: Information, Governance and Investment, and Solutions and Processes. Information • • We will support a culture of inquiry and information-based decision making. We will maintain an environment of open information sharing. Governance and Investment • • • • We will make investment decisions based upon advancing the UW’s strategic goals. We will ensure that our decision-making process engages our stakeholders and maximizes our investments. We will provide for sustainability and continuous improvement. We will accept a reasonable level of risk and balance risk with anticipated beneﬁt. Solutions and Processes • • • • We will consider holistic solutions that encourage business process improvement. We will invest in appropriate solutions rather than commit to a single technology, vendor, or approach. We will place a priority on interoperable solutions. We will develop shared solutions for common needs and support local solutions for specialized needs. 14 | UW Strategic Roadmap Roadmap Initiatives The Roadmap recommends ﬁve key initiatives (see diagram at left) to meet the University’s business and information needs into the future. Together, these initiatives address the key challenges the University faces in delivering information for decision making and supporting its business operations. These initiatives build upon one another, and each is essential to the success of the whole. Progress must be made on each to develop the modern, ﬂexible systems and processes needed to support the UW’s future business operations. The goals and rationale for each initiative are described in this section. Information for Decision Making Continue to develop the consistent data deﬁnitions, tools, infrastructure, integration framework, and training necessary to provide access to accurate, useful information for decision making. Key beneﬁts: • • • Provide easier access to information for decision making Integrate data across subject areas Provide tools and training so users can ask questions, analyze results, and produce meaningful reports One of the leading concerns raised by stakeholders during the Roadmap process was the lack of access to timely, accurate information for decision making. At every level of the University, people do not have access to the information they need to manage effectively. Even basic information—such as student headcount by major, number of full-time faculty in a given school or college, or ﬁnancial resources for a given ﬁscal period—is extraordinarily difﬁcult to obtain. UW Strategic Roadmap | 15 Key challenges in this area include: • Lack of institutional deﬁnitions for commonly used data such as student FTE or faculty FTE. This makes it difﬁcult to track and compare data across units, have a common understanding of what the data means, or get common answers to basic questions. Lack of historical data makes it hard to track trends or perform strategic analysis. There is limited ability to track people, money, and space over time. Lack of integration across systems makes it challenging to develop a holistic view of the information or track and analyze trends. Lack of access to central data at the unit level means that schools, colleges, and departments cannot perform critical analysis needed to manage their businesses. To compensate for this and other inadequacies, units have developed hundreds of shadow systems that contain duplicative and often conﬂicting data. These shadow systems raise serious security concerns, since security access policies are inconsistent and not well understood across units, and knowledge and expertise about computing security is uneven. • • • This initiative includes a number of critical projects to provide access to data and to the tools and training necessary for units to be able to interpret the data, perform analysis, and produce meaningful reports. Projects also focus on building the necessary support infrastructure. It is important to note that the Roadmap’s other initiatives are also critical to achieving the goals of this initiative. In particular, the Replace the Base initiative is important because the UW’s current systems do not capture some critical information, and these systems will have to be replaced before the University can have access to all of the information it needs. The Information for Decision Making projects fall under three major action areas: Information Intelligence & Delivery, Information Integration & Design, and Information Infrastructure & Deﬁnitions. What follows is an overview of proposed projects under each action area. Information Intelligence & Delivery Projects under this action area include: • Continue to enhance business intelligence tools that enable users to analyze and summarize data and produce meaningful reports. These tools also enable users to see and analyze data at a detailed level. Standardize how institutional data is produced and reported by continuing the work started by the “Deans’ Top 5 Questions” project. This will ensure that data is being collected and reported consistently across the institution. The Deans’ Top 5 Questions project focused on answering the ﬁve most critical data questions as identiﬁed by deans, including: - Student headcount for a given school/college - Student credit hours for a given school/college • 16 | UW Strategic Roadmap - Faculty headcount by appointment type - Faculty FTE by appointment type - Permanent operating budget by GOF, DOF, and RCR An additional goal of the project was to create a repeatable process for continuing to deﬁne institutional data. • • Provide an enterprise portal and search tools so that users can have easy access to all the information, tools, and resources they need in a single place. Create and deliver custom training programs for analysts, developers, and end users covering best practices in data access and use. This will ensure that users understand the data they are using and that developers can avoid redundant development work by using shared tools and services. Information Integration & Design Projects under this action area include: • Provide shared tools for departments and units that they can easily extend and customize to support both enterprise and local applications. This includes implementing workﬂow tools, a business rules engine, and a message queuing infrastructure. Enable collaborative development efforts across the University. This will allow units to see the functionality that has been developed by other units, reuse it, or integrate it into a new application. Develop applications that support the consistent implementation of security roles and authorization schemes across all systems. This will allow the UW to establish consistent security rules and support single sign-on to access multiple systems and reports. Acquire tools and provide training to business analysts including business process modeling, data modeling, and Web services modeling. This will support consistency and improve the quality of business process design. Establish and promote communities of interest to help design solutions that can work together. • • • • UW Strategic Roadmap | 17 Information Infrastructure & Deﬁnitions All of the Information for Decision Making projects will be supported by the projects under the Information Infrastructure & Deﬁnitions action area. Projects under this action area include: • Develop common data deﬁnitions and make key common data available to the enterprise. This will allow systems to be integrated more easily and will improve the integrity of data reporting between them. It also will enable people across the University to access consistent, accurate data and compare data across units. Continue to expand the enterprise data warehouse including the build-out of new subject areas. This will enable improved access to data across subject areas and better data integration. Acquire an electronic document management and imaging system to enable online access to business documents through an enterprise portal. This will eliminate the need for multiple document copies, reduce paper storage requirements, and support consistent records retention policies. Develop policies, practices, standards, and guidelines for the governance and management of information. Develop the necessary infrastructure to support access to integrated data across subject areas. • • • • Replace the Base Replace the UW’s aging legacy systems with modern, ﬂexible systems. Systems to be replaced include ﬁnance, budget, procurement, HR/payroll, and student administration. Key beneﬁts: • • • • Provide modern, agile, and ﬂexible systems Improve operational efﬁciency Provide better information for decision making Keep pace with changing business needs Why Replace the Base? The University of Washington’s legacy systems are vital to the daily operations of this institution, supporting the work of roughly 72,000 faculty, students, and staff. The workhorses of the University, these systems store thousands of rules about the way the UW does business and process hundreds of thousands of transactions a day. They provide indirect, but nonetheless essential support to the University’s mission of teaching, research, and public service. 18 | UW Strategic Roadmap The systems: • • • • • • Pay employees $1.6 billion annually Receive and distribute $1.1 billion in research grants annually Handle UW ﬁnancial transactions, processing 1.45 million transactions monthly Register students online, processing more than 500 transactions per minute during peak times Retain the ofﬁcial academic records of 761,000 UW students —every attendee since 1981 Keep UW operations running, routinely handling more than 700,000 transactions daily with an average response time of under two seconds The University’s Aging Systems The University’s systems date back to the early 1970s and 1980s when this institution’s operating environment was substantially less complex than it is today. They were designed to support the UW at a time when the state provided the majority of its funding. Today, state funding makes up less than 13 percent of the University’s $3 billion in annual revenue. The largest source is grants and contracts that total about $1 billion per year. In addition, self-sustaining operations have grown exponentially. This increasingly diversiﬁed funding base demands a more sophisticated management approach. The UW’s systems are not keeping up. In fact, the University legacy systems are among the oldest and most archaic of its peer institutions. Most of the University’s peers have long since upgraded their systems, leaving the UW in a small minority of peers with systems dating back 30 years. (More information about peers is included later in the report. See UW Peers on page 34.) Operational Inefﬁciencies Are Eroding Productivity The inadequacy of these systems is resulting in operational inefﬁciencies that impact people at every level of this institution. It is difﬁcult for faculty and staff to perform even the most basic functions, such as hiring, purchasing, tracking and managing multiple budgets, and making accurate budget projections. The systems lack basic tools and functionality to help staff do their work, such as controls to prevent over-spending, visibility into pending ﬁnancial transactions, or ability to do ﬁnancial reporting at the unit or department level. The systems do not collect the level and detail of data required to meet the UW’s growing information needs. As a result, staff must engage in “daily heroics” just to keep business operations running and get the information they need to do their jobs. They must make extraordinary efforts to perform basic job duties, employing numerous manual workarounds and engaging in other cumbersome and time-consuming processes that take away from higher-level work. To compensate for missing functionality, departments and units across the University have created hundreds of shadow systems at considerable cost and effort. These shadow systems represent a signiﬁcant security risk to the University, and maintaining them is costly and inefﬁcient. UW Strategic Roadmap | 19 Stafﬁng Challenges Increase Risk Added to these challenges is the fact that only a handful of staff now understands the University’s legacy systems, and this staff will retire in the next ﬁve to ten years. Recruiting new staff with expertise in COBOL, the programming language used by these systems, will be increasingly difﬁcult. The lack of COBOL programmers is an industry-wide problem, and there are efforts underway to train new ones. However, even if these efforts are successful, the programmers are not likely to be of the same caliber as those retiring and will not know the UW’s systems. These problems with the legacy systems are chronic and systemic. While the risk of sudden failure is small, the real challenge is that the systems are becoming increasingly complex and difﬁcult to maintain in response to changing regulations and business requirements. This challenge will only grow over time, making each future update more difﬁcult, time consuming, and costly. A New Strategy Is Needed The UW’s strategy of continuing to maintain and enhance its current legacy systems has worked for a number of years, enabling the UW to focus its resources on higher priorities while making small, incremental investments in its legacy systems. However, efforts to enhance and extend these systems have gone as far as they can go. These systems already do not meet the University’s rapidly changing business and compliance needs, and that gap is widening with each passing year as the systems grow more complex, harder to maintain and revise, and more unwieldy and unresponsive. Factoring in the time needed for planning, funding, and approval processes, it is likely to take ﬁve to six years to replace the legacy ﬁnancial and procurement systems alone. By that time, the existing systems will be almost 40 years old. Given the time it will take to replace these systems, it is important that the University begin planning in earnest now. Delay will prolong the process and increase the risks and costs. The University needs to commit the resources and effort required to “replace the base,” and to support its critical business and information needs into the future. The Three System Replacement Projects Replacing the University’s three legacy systems will eliminate many of the operational inefﬁciencies eroding faculty and staff productivity. The new systems will provide critical data for decision making and collect the level of detailed data required to meet the University’s growing information needs. 20 | UW Strategic Roadmap Financial, Budget, and Procurement Systems This project would replace the UW’s current legacy ﬁnancial, budget, and procurement systems. The new system(s) should provide: • • • • • • • • • • • • • A new chart of accounts and organization structure to provide ﬁnancial reports at a more detailed level and support interdisciplinary programs Capture of transactional data at a more detailed level to provide analytical information and controls to manage spending Timely unit-level ﬁnancial statements to provide business unit managers with the budget and actual ﬁnancial information to manage their business effectively Performance management and metrics to support the University’s accountability objectives Financial reporting on a biennial, ﬁscal year, and life-to-date basis to provide ﬁnancial managers with information to manage the University’s ﬁnances Stewardship reporting on gifts and grants to provide stakeholders with more timely, accurate, and useful information Access to historical data for comparison and trend analysis The ability to track and manage multiple budgets and make budget projections Real-time budget spending controls, warning messages, and visibility into pending transactions to prevent over-spending The ability to track commitments against budgets Vendor contract management capabilities to improve controls, compliance, and efﬁciency Improved integration with equipment management and capital assets systems Electronic document management and automated workﬂow to eliminate manual paper processes, improve efﬁciencies, improve tracking, and provide all users with easy access to source documents HR/Payroll System An integrated solution will be selected to support the life cycle of employment at the University, from recruitment through separation and retirement. The new system should provide: • Support for the life cycle of employee activities including recruiting, job descriptions, candidate matching, stafﬁng and workforce management, personnel administration, compensation, beneﬁts, timekeeping, background checks, probationary hiring periods, vacation and leave tracking, payroll, training and development, certiﬁcation and license tracking, performance evaluations, visas and immigration status, accidents and incidents, health and safety, temporary employment, student employee credit hours, exit interviews, position vacancies, compliance, employee self service, manager self service, and position control. UW Strategic Roadmap | 21 • An integrated system for payroll and human resource management for faculty and staff, retaining all information about positions, appointments, and employees, including a full life cycle of employee activities. This should eliminate the proliferation of standalone systems and manual processes and improve the efﬁciency of HR operations. In the long term, access to this information should support the University’s ability to recruit, retain, and develop faculty and staff. Faculty management capabilities including tenure dates, interest areas, voting faculty, faculty salary comparisons, and sabbaticals. Full compliance with all federal, state, and local tax and regulatory requirements to eliminate manual calculations and compliance reporting. • • Student Administration System An integrated solution will be selected or developed to support student recruitment, admissions, enrollment, course management, graduation, alumni relationships, planning and advising, student life, curriculum management, accreditation, and student ﬁnances (ﬁnancial aid and billing). The new system should provide: • • • • • A full life cycle of information about students and their activities to allow administrators to provide more complete and customized advisory service Support for multiple campuses Support for students and faculty involved in interdisciplinary programs Information for more complete curriculum planning and management More complete information about student activities and interests to allow customized contacts by University Advancement staff UW’s Legacy Systems: Showing Their Age: The UW’s aging legacy systems that support its core business operations date back to the 1970s and 1980s. As of 2008, these systems and their ages are as follows: System Student Procurement/Payables Payroll Finance/Budget Year 1982 1982 1981 1974 Age 26 26 27 34 22 | UW Strategic Roadmap Redesign Processes Design consistent, streamlined business processes to leverage new technologies. Key beneﬁts: • • • Maximize positive impact of new systems Streamline work Manage change The importance of redesigning business processes and managing change to support new technologies is frequently underestimated, as are the associated costs. Failure to rethink business processes as part of system replacement is one of the leading reasons why organizations do not achieve user acceptance or return on technology investments. Organizations must structure new processes to support good controls and predictability and take advantage of technological improvements, while ensuring the processes are ﬂexible enough to respond to changing requirements. Under this initiative, business process redesign will go hand-in-hand with all major system replacement projects. Changes to business processes may be possible even before the new systems are in place. The focus will be on designing consistent, streamlined business processes that fully leverage new system technologies and capabilities. This approach also will drive development of a culture of ongoing business process improvement and collaboration to develop best practices. In addition, business process redesign will focus on reexamining processes to ensure that they support strategic goals efﬁciently and effectively. At the UW, business processes supporting ﬁnance, procurement, and HR/payroll functions in particular have developed over many years and include work-arounds to compensate for the limited functionality of the legacy systems. These processes must be redesigned in order to leverage new technologies. Some examples of future redesign efforts might include: • New ﬁnancial data entry processes: Currently, many departments require administrative staff to enter summary data into the central ﬁnancial systems and then re-enter additional data into shadow systems to accurately capture project details, accruals, and other information to support internal reporting needs. New ﬁnancial systems will enable users to enter detailed ﬁnancial data and get the full range of ﬁnancial reporting they need. Users will be able to redesign current processes to enter data only once, which will reduce redundant and conﬂicting data and ensure that one source of information can be used for multiple levels of reporting. New automated workﬂow processes: Contemporary systems now support automated workﬂow, electronic documents, and online approvals. These capabilities • UW Strategic Roadmap | 23 will reduce paperwork and improve efﬁciency and tracking. User processes can be redesigned to take maximum advantage of deﬁned roles, responsibilities, escalation, and document storage and retrieval rules in order to streamline workﬂow, reduce paperwork, support full tracking of approvals, and make source documents available to all who need them. • Streamlined business rules: With new systems, business rules can be captured online. These rule-based systems help ensure compliance and remove the guesswork for new users. The current systems signiﬁcantly limit the ability to enter and edit online rules. As a result, manual processes and controls have been developed. With the new rules-based systems, many of the manual processes can be eliminated or streamlined, allowing managers to focus on exception reporting. Enhance and Renew Systems Invest in ongoing enhancement, development, and technology renewal of all core administrative systems. Key beneﬁts: • • • • Keep up with changing business needs Continue to add to research functionality Upgrade alumni, development, and facilities systems Make high-value interim upgrades to legacy systems This initiative focuses on continuing to develop and enhance the UW’s core administrative systems supporting research administration, alumni/development, and facilities and space. In addition, this initiative recommends that the UW continue to invest in high-value interim upgrades to legacy systems until those systems are replaced. This is especially important because it is likely to take ﬁve to six years to replace the legacy ﬁnancial and procurement systems alone. The interim improvements will ensure that the UW can meet its shorter-term compliance and business requirements during the period before the systems are replaced. Any interim enhancements to systems slated for replacement will be rigorously evaluated to ensure they are required for compliance or other reasons, will provide short-term payback, or will help with eventual migration to a new system. 24 | UW Strategic Roadmap While this initiative focuses on high-value incremental enhancements to the legacy systems slated for replacement, it is important to note that once the new systems are in place, the UW will need to continue to invest in enhancing and renewing the new systems to keep them current and ensure they do not become the next generation of legacy systems. Research Administration Systems that support the mission-critical area of research administration are incomplete and still missing important functionality. Enhancements will focus on creating a research portal with one-stop shopping that will guide researchers and staff through the compliance, administrative, and reporting processes that incorporate the end-to-end research life cycle— from grant submission through outcome reporting. Users will be able to view all compliance activities from this portal. Projects will focus on continuing to create streamlined, consistent, and integrated systems and processes. Alumni/Development In the alumni/development area, the UW already has followed a best-of-breed approach by migrating from the legacy systems to a commercial product called Advance. As a result, the alumni/development system is generally more functional, stable, and reliable than other systems. However, it is important to continue to enhance and upgrade these systems to meet the changing needs and expectations of donors and to keep up with technology changes so these systems do not become outdated. Enhancement projects will include improving integration with all major UW administrative systems, enhanced stewardship reporting, constituent relationship and life cycle reporting, and technology upgrades. Facilities and Space The existing systems and processes supporting facilities and space will need to be updated over the next few years. Better information on costs and usage of space and facilities is needed in order to optimize space utilization, facilitate cost recovery, and improve asset controls—especially management of hazardous materials. As with all other administrative systems, consistent data deﬁnitions are needed in this area, as is improved integration with other administrative systems. UW Strategic Roadmap | 25 Prioritize and Make Decisions Develop a transparent decision-making process and a mature portfolio management framework. Enable collaborative projects across units. Key beneﬁts: • • • Provide strategic direction and alignment with institutional goals Set priorities and maximize investments Leverage expertise of departmental resources across the University This initiative provides the governance framework necessary to support the other four initiatives. It focuses on developing a transparent governance process for information management and administrative systems (IM/AS) that will enable a cohesive, coordinated, and collaborative approach to prioritization and decision making aligned with institutional priorities. The initiative will establish a mature portfolio management process that enables the University to align resources and projects with institutional strategic priorities and to maximize investments. To support this effort, the initiative recommends creating a Project Management Ofﬁce to provide project planning and oversight, portfolio analysis, and to implement project management best practices. The initiative calls for the development of a predictable and sustainable funding model for IM/AS. Finally, this initiative will put in place the support structures necessary to enable collaboration across units and leverage the expertise of the UW’s development community. This initiative’s projects fall under ﬁve major action areas: Prioritization and Decision Making, Project Intake and Review Process, Stafﬁng, Investment, and Community and Partnership Development. What follows is an overview of proposed projects under each action area. Prioritization and Decision Making Projects under this action area include: • Redeﬁne the role of the Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC) to be a strategic advisory committee for IM/AS directions and initiatives. As part of this process, clarify committee roles and responsibilities, clarify relationship with other Technology Advisory Committees, evaluate membership, and determine the resources required to support I-MAC. Establish a new project review and oversight committee. To enable I-MAC to focus on strategic issues, establish a new committee to do the more detailed work involved with enterprise-scale project review and oversight (i.e., the current I-MAC proposal process). The committee should consist of key institutional decision makers and be supported by an effective process that facilitates stakeholder input. • 26 | UW Strategic Roadmap • Revise other IM/AS governance priority-setting groups. Evaluate the current system of IM/AS oversight and priority-setting groups and committees to create a cohesive and effective structure that aligns with the overall IM/AS governance structure. Project Intake and Review Process Projects under this action area include: • Evaluate and revise the I-MAC proposal process to make it more streamlined and align it with the Washington State Department of Information Services (DIS) process. This includes streamlining and improving the intake process, reviewing the current 500-hour threshold to evaluate whether to raise it, reviewing the frequency of the proposal cycle and how to address emergent needs, and developing linkages to other IM/AS governance committees. Develop a proposal review and governance process for smaller projects to include intake, review, and approvals and an appropriate governance structure. Implement portfolio management to support and inform strategic goals and the project review and governance processes. The portfolio should include all IM/AS projects at the UW. Establish a Project Management Ofﬁce to support the portfolio management process and implement project management best practices. • • Stafﬁng Projects under this action area include: • Develop an IM/AS workforce management program in partnership with UW Technology HR that includes professional development, staff recruiting, retention and succession planning, and HR consulting. Deﬁne clear roles and responsibilities for the dual-reporting, or “dotted line,” relationships between unit staff and the Ofﬁce of Information Management. • Investment Projects under this action area include: • The Vice Provost of Information Management/CIO should work with the Provost, Senior Vice President, and Vice Provost for Planning & Budgeting to devise a process for establishing a predictable and sustainable funding model for IM/AS in conjunction with implementing the Roadmap. Community and Partnership Development Projects under this action area include: • Develop the services, processes, structures, administrative support, and technical architecture necessary to enable community-based projects and initiatives. UW Strategic Roadmap | 27 Roadmap Action Plan The following section outlines an action plan for implementing the ﬁve Roadmap initiatives, including recommended sequencing and timing. The charts in this section show a high-level view of proposed timelines and sequencing for each initiative and supporting projects. The timelines suggested are aggressive and assume that funding commitments have been secured. Additional discussion of timing is included later in this report. (See When and How Long? on page 37.) This proposal covers a roughly ten-year period, with replacement of all three legacy systems completed in seven years, or by 2015. Under the proposal, work on Replace the Base would begin with the ﬁnancial system replacement in 2008. Participation in the Kuali Foundation’s effort to develop a new student system would also begin in 2008, with work on actual system implementation starting in 2011. The HR/payroll system replacement project would begin in 2009. The plan recommends beginning with ﬁnancial system replacement because the project will involve critical decisions relating to organizational reporting structure and budgeting that ideally should precede the HR/payroll system replacement. Another important reason to proceed with the ﬁnancial system replacement ﬁrst is that there is an opportunity to partner with the state of Washington, which is also considering replacing its legacy ﬁnancial system. The state’s replacement project was a key recommendation to come out of its recent strategic plan for ﬁnance and administration. The UW is actively engaged in discussions about this possibility with the state, and with Washington State University, which is looking at replacing its legacy ﬁnancial system. In addition, the plan recommends participating in the Kuali Foundation student system development effort concurrently with the ﬁnancial system replacement because there is a narrow window of opportunity to become involved in the project as a founding partner and inﬂuence system design. More information on the Kuali project is included in the section on UW Peers. (See Kuali Foundation Student System on page 36.) The Replace the Base initiative chart follows the Washington State project management framework, which breaks projects into the following phases: • • • Initiation Detailed planning Execution Each initiative includes detailed steps and phases that are not outlined in the charts. Where possible, projects will be designed to deliver functionality to users incrementally, as that functionality is developed. In addition, every effort will be made to reduce the impact of project planning and implementation on key business partners through capacity planning to assess the demands that will be placed on technical and business staff and by providing backﬁll for those positions as necessary. 28 | UW Strategic Roadmap Information for Decision Making • Continue to develop the common data deﬁnitions, tools, and infrastructure to enable access to accurate information for decision making and to support all core systems and development efforts across the UW community. Replace the Base • Start the legacy system replacement projects with the ﬁnancial system replacement, followed by the HR/payroll replacement. UW Strategic Roadmap | 29 • At the same time, become a partner in Kuali Student, a higher education consortium developing a next-generation student system. Enter the partnership in ﬁscal year 2008-2009 in order to gain the beneﬁts of early involvement in the design, requirements, and development consortium. Implement all replacement system projects in multi-phase releases. • Redesign Processes • Have major process redesign efforts go hand-in-hand with system replacement projects. Enhance and Renew Systems 30 | UW Strategic Roadmap • • • Have enhancements to core systems supporting research administration, facilities and space, and alumni/development occur in parallel with legacy system replacements. Continue high-value interim upgrades to legacy systems to keep the systems current and functional until they are replaced. Reassess and prioritize enhancement projects at least annually. Prioritize and Make Decisions • Provide the governance framework necessary to support the other four initiatives, including prioritization, decision making, resource allocation, funding, and development of a collaborative partnership environment. UW Strategic Roadmap | 31 Replace the Base Alternatives and Approaches Implementing the Roadmap, and in particular the Replace the Base initiative to replace the UW’s core legacy systems, will involve signiﬁcant commitment and investment. To provide some context for the difﬁcult decisions ahead, this section outlines the University’s possible system replacement options and discusses which ones have been selected by peer higher education institutions and by the state of Washington. Four Alternatives The UW has four options for replacing its core legacy systems: • Vendor solution. Select and acquire a commercial software package, with or without customization. This can be licensed and maintained in-house, or operated in a shared or hosted environment. Higher education consortium. Select an open source/community source approach developed by a consortium of higher education institutions. In most cases this will require a smaller investment up front, but may require more internal development staff to enhance, support, and maintain the software than would be required with a vendorsupported system. Business partnership. Join a co-development effort with a for-proﬁt software, consulting, or integration company. Homegrown. Develop a custom solution either in-house or by hiring contractors. • • • Recommended Approach In keeping with the Guiding Principles established by the Information Management Advisory Committee, the UW recognizes that a single vendor or solution might not meet all of the needs of a complex institution. The UW therefore will evaluate the unique needs of each major business function and select the solution that best meets the needs of that area. As part of the evaluation, the UW will take into consideration the effort and complexity of integrating and supporting multiple solutions and technologies. Assessing the ability of each system to integrate with other systems will also be a key component in the selection process. In addition, the UW will select the solutions that provide the best balance of functionality, ﬂexibility, long-term maintainability, and cost effectiveness. The UW will acquire commercial packages where cost effective solutions are available. The UW will seek partnerships with other agencies and institutions where possible, and proceed alone where its needs are unique. 32 | UW Strategic Roadmap The following table shows some possible solutions for replacing each of the legacy systems. Detailed scoping, feasibility, requirements, and selection projects are needed to determine the UW’s actual preferred options. Business Area Financial, Budget, and Procurement Possible Solutions Higher education consortium: Kuali Vendor solution: SAP, Oracle, Banner HR/Payroll Vendor solution: SAP, Oracle, Lawson, Banner Higher education consortium: Kuali Student Adminstration Vendor solution: Banner, Oracle What Others Are Doing The following is a brief, high-level look at what system replacement alternatives have been selected by other higher education institutions and the state of Washington. This type of comparison can be useful in understanding the various approaches and their relative costs. Numbers included are only preliminary estimates from institutions’ Web sites, and should not be viewed as complete or ﬁnal. They are being provided for context only. The charts below provide a quick overview of the systems of other peer institutions and the state of Washington; details are given in the sections that follow. Systems used by other peer institutions: Approach Banner Oracle Organization (system) Vendor Solution Illinois (ﬁnance, HR, student) Michigan (ﬁnance, HR, student) Minnesota (ﬁnance, HR, student) Indiana (HR, student) Cost $ $180m $100m-125m $125m-150m $100m $200m SAP MIT (ﬁnance, payroll) Consortium Kuali U of Arizona (ﬁnance, research) Homegrown $10m plus Legacy Mainframe UCLA, UCSD Not available UW Strategic Roadmap | 33 Systems used by the state of Washington: Approach SAP SAP Example Organizations Vendor Solution HR/Payroll Financials under consideration Homegrown/Legacy $67m Cost $ Not available Legacy Mainframe AFRS (current ﬁnancial systems) Not available UW Peers An analysis of 30 of the UW’s peer institutions reveals that few have older systems than the University of Washington. In fact: • • • Only one out of 30 peer institutions has an older ﬁnancial system than the UW. Only two peers have an older student system. Only four peers have an older HR/payroll system. This data is from the 2007 EDUCAUSE Fact Book and other higher education sources. The analysis of more than 30 institutions included 24 from the Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board’s list of UW peers, 8 from the state of Washington Ofﬁce of Financial Management list of UW peers, and 11 from the UW Global Challenge list of peers. A majority of these institutions have replaced their legacy systems over the past ten years with large vendor solutions, or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, especially in the ﬁnancial and HR/payroll areas. The two ERP systems selected most frequently are Oracle and Banner. Of the few homegrown systems remaining at the UW’s peer institutions, most were built before 1990. The following table shows the approaches taken by the University of Washington’s three peer comparison groups: 1) Higher Education Coordinating Board (HECB) Peer Group; 2) Washington State Ofﬁce of Financial Management (OFM) Peer Group; and 3) Global Challenge Peer State Institutions (state ﬂagships with medical schools). 34 | UW Strategic Roadmap Administrative Systems Used by Peer Institutions 33 Universities Homegrown system Oracle ERP Banner ERP SAP ERP Other vendor system Average year of ERP implementation Financial 19% (6) HR/Payroll 28% 47% 13% 6% 6% 2000 (9) (15) (4) (2) (2) Student 42% 19% 35% 0% 3% 1994 (13) (6) (11) (0) (1) 44% (14) 28% 3% 6% (9) (1) (2) 1998 Of the peer institutions that have ERPs in all three areas (ﬁnance, HR/payroll and student), seven use the same ERP in all the areas, and eight institutions employ a mix of ERPs. For example, the University of Illinois system replaced all three areas with Banner. The University of Minnesota replaced all three areas with Oracle. Some universities that have been following a strategy similar to the UW’s of supporting and strengthening their legacy systems now seem to be considering ERPs. In 2006, UCLA’s strategic plan endorsed retaining and strengthening its legacy systems, but acknowledged that it must start to prepare for an eventual move to an ERP. The 2007-09 budget request included $700,000 for preparation planning. Michigan State, the only university with an older ﬁnancial system than the UW’s, authorized replacement of its legacy systems in 2006. The University selected Kuali ﬁnancials and SAP for its HR/payroll system, according to its Web site. Target implementation date is 2009-2010. Michigan State was also one of the ﬁve institutions with an older HR/payroll system than the UW. The Washington State University (WSU) strategic plan, updated February 2007, called for a review of alternatives for legacy system replacement, and development of a replacement/ upgrade plan, including a timetable and funding strategy. WSU requested a scoping study to replace ﬁnancial and student systems, estimating the implementation cost at around $60 million. UW Strategic Roadmap | 35 Higher Education Consortia As an alternative to commercial ERPs, some universities are joining consortia to build administrative systems that are speciﬁcally designed for the higher education environment. The Kuali Foundation is an example. The Kuali Foundation is a collaborative effort between numerous universities, including Indiana University, University of California, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Michigan State University, to create a suite of open-source administrative systems to meet the needs of Carnegie Class institutions. Currently the foundation has four partnerships focused on developing systems in the following core areas: ﬁnancial, research administration, student, and endowment management systems. Kuali Foundation Student System The Roadmap strongly recommends that the University of Washington join the Kuali Foundation as a founding member and participate in the development of the Kuali student system. This is a unique opportunity for the UW to partner with other Tier 1 peer higher education institutions to develop the next-generation student system. Current founding partners include the University of British Columbia, University of California (Berkeley), University of Maryland (College Park), Florida State University, San Joaquin Delta College, and the University of Southern California. The UW’s current student administrative system is a 26-year-old homegrown legacy mainframe application that is inﬂexible and does not collect the information critical to effective operations and decision making. A next-generation student administrative system has the potential to substantially improve the educational quality and experience for UW students. The new system will provide better tracking of educational outcomes against expected performance, which will enable the UW to raise the bar on developing new educational programs and instruction methods. The UW’s current system does not have those capabilities. Joining the Kuali Foundation now will give the UW a voice in deciding critical design issues so that the ﬁnal product has a high probability of meeting UW needs. This early involvement also will enable the UW community to leverage the resources of partner institutions in redesigning student administrative processes to maximize efﬁciencies and ﬂexibility. State of Washington The state of Washington is following the trend of replacing legacy systems with ERP implementations. The state recently replaced its HR/payroll system with an SAP solution at a cost of $67 million. The state is now considering replacing its legacy ﬁnancial and accounting system and is considering SAP as a possible solution. The need to replace its ﬁnancial systems was a key recommendation of the state’s recent strategic plan for ﬁnance and administration, the “Roadmap for Washington State Financial and Administrative Policies, Processes and Systems.” 36 | UW Strategic Roadmap As part of this effort, the Washington State Ofﬁce of Financial Management is currently engaging all state agencies, including higher education institutions, in projects to deﬁne common data and a new chart of accounts. The UW is participating in these activities. In addition, the UW is actively engaged in conversations with the state and Washington State University to understand what each is planning in this area and to explore possible partnerships. Continuing this active engagement will be important to ensure that the UW’s plans remain aligned with state efforts. Any large information management or administrative systems project that the UW undertakes will need to receive approval from the Washington State Department of Information Services, and in the case of ﬁnancial systems, the Washington State Ofﬁce of Financial Management. State Resources: Roadmap for Washington State Financial and Administrative Policies, Processes, and System is available at: www.ofm.wa.gov/roadmap/default.asp The State Strategic IT Plan is available at: http://dis.wa.gov/news/publications/IT_Strategic_Plan_2008.pdf When and How Long? A key question often asked is “When can the UW begin its system replacement projects and how long will they take?” The answer depends upon many internal and external variables, including: • • • • • • • How long it will take to secure funding and approvals from the state and others Time needed to explore possible partnerships The impact of competing priorities for funding at the UW and of any leadership or organizational changes Institutional commitment and capacity Vendor product releases Length of time needed to recruit staff The impact of other major non-technology projects on needed resources This is a major undertaking that will require years of sustained institutional commitment to be successful. UW Strategic Roadmap | 37 The timing also depends upon what approach, or combination of approaches, the UW chooses to take. Examples of alternative approaches are included in the following table. Area Speed of implementation • • • Option 1 Implement more quickly: Implement with minimal customizations. Minimize data conversion. Defer enhanced reporting, portals, and interfaces. • • • Option 2 Implement more slowly: Allow time for change management and user training. Include more user-friendly features. Implementation releases Timing and overlap of projects Project stafﬁng The “big bang” approach— implement for all users, all modules. Overlap major business systems projects: Work to replace ﬁnance, HR/payroll, student, etc., concurrently. Use system integration and consulting ﬁrms to staff the implementation projects, training internal staff to provide support and maintenance. This generally will allow a faster implementation, but it likely will cost more. Customize more to meet user needs. Implement in increments— for example, by module or by user group. Focus on one business area at a time. Backﬁll internal staff (users and technical), train staff, and use consultant experts only where needed for knowledge transfer. This generally will take longer, but it likely will cost less. Each involves balancing project scope, schedule, and resources and evaluating the capacity of the institution to implement and manage change. Any adjustment to one of these variables impacts the other two. 38 | UW Strategic Roadmap The Reality Triangle In general, faster implementations are more expensive, more resource intensive, more disruptive, and involve higher risks. Slower implementations can be less costly, allow for more customization, training and knowledge transfer, and therefore are less disruptive and involve less risk. However, they take longer. These tradeoffs between scope, time, and resources are what John (Barry) Walsh of the University of Indiana Information Systems refers to as the “reality triangle.” Any impact in one area affects the other two. The diagram illustrates the idea that the three areas are interdependent. UW Strategic Roadmap | 39 Moving Forward Next Steps The following next steps for implementing the Roadmap have been identiﬁed through discussions with the Information Management Advisory Committee, University Technology Advisory Committee, Board of Deans and Chancellors, and other key stakeholders: • Move forward with the ﬁnancial system replacement. Begin work on a needs assessment and explore possible partnerships, including with the state, as well as other options. Join the Kuali student partnership. Become a founding member of the Kuali Foundation student system development effort. Invest in high-value system enhancements as funding allows. Identify a long-term funding strategy to implement the Roadmap initiatives. This includes identifying an annual operating and capital investment plan for information management and administrative systems. • • • Workforce Planning As the University moves forward with system replacement, it also will need to engage in thoughtful, long-term workforce planning for its technology staff. As new technologies are introduced and old ones decommissioned it will be critical to retain, reward, and retrain valued staff members and engage in succession planning to prepare for the upcoming wave of retirements. In addition, it will be important to continue to focus on building an environment that encourages and rewards sharing, collaboration, and partnership within the UW and with external groups such as higher education consortia, state agencies, and business partners. New technologies will provide great opportunities for those who thrive in a community environment. Updates to the Roadmap The Roadmap will be updated annually prior to the budgeting process. Projects and initiatives will be reassessed and prioritized in conjunction with the governance framework and the portfolio management process. Invest in the Future For the past two decades the University has made a strategic decision to invest its limited technology resources in research and other computing priorities. This approach has enabled the UW to build a technology infrastructure that has made this institution a global leader in technology and given it a competitive edge. 40 | UW Strategic Roadmap This strategy, however, has resulted in decades of underinvestment in information management and administrative systems. The UW’s aging and functionally inadequate systems are now resulting in inefﬁciencies that are eroding the productivity of faculty, staff, and researchers at every level of the institution. Up to this point, the UW has been able to maintain its core systems on a small and unpredictable budget. However, this funding model will not support the capital investments needed to move to a new generation of systems. A new funding model is needed to support baseline operations and maintenance, ongoing technology renewal, and major projects. A sustainable and predictable life cycle funding plan is needed to optimize decision making and ensure that investments in new systems are leveraged through the ongoing maintenance and technology renewal required to keep those systems current. The University of Washington is a premier higher education institution that repeatedly is recognized as one of the best in the world. Yet its administrative systems are among the oldest and most archaic of its peers. These systems do not meet the University’s current business needs, and they cannot support its future aspirations. The University does not need the world’s best payroll or accounts payable system. But it does need modern, ﬂexible systems and accurate, timely information to support a complex, global enterprise. It is time for this institution to move from discussion to action—and make the investments necessary to position the University of Washington for the future. UW Strategic Roadmap | 41 APPENDICES The report’s four appendices cover current stafﬁng allocations for IM/AS, the history and context of UW IM/AS, a detailed discussion of the strategic roadmap project and report development, and a full list of contributors. 42 | UW Strategic Roadmap Appendices - Contents I. CURRENT STAFFING ALLOCATIONS FOR UW IM/AS 44 Introduction...........................................................................................................44 Stafﬁng Support for Information Management and Administrative Systems .......44 Staff Allocation by Activity Type .......................................................................44 Overview of Functional Areas ..........................................................................45 Staff Allocation by Functional Area ..................................................................46 Stafﬁng Support for Technical Infrastructure ........................................................52 II. HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF UW IM/AS 54 Prior Information Management and Administrative Systems Strategy .................54 IS Futures Task Force ..........................................................................................55 Ofﬁce of Information Management .......................................................................56 III. THE STRATEGIC ROADMAP PROJECT: DEVELOPING THE ROADMAP 58 Project Objectives and Scope ..............................................................................58 Project Approach ..................................................................................................60 Project Planning...............................................................................................60 Perform Discovery ...........................................................................................60 Document Current State ..................................................................................61 Research Trends .............................................................................................61 Deﬁne the Vision ..............................................................................................61 Analyze the Gap ..............................................................................................61 Develop Action Plan.........................................................................................62 Project Structure...................................................................................................62 Project Phase Results ..........................................................................................63 Discovery Process ...........................................................................................63 Summary of Themes .......................................................................................64 Current State Assessment ...............................................................................65 Summary of Current State Findings ................................................................66 Funding for IM/AS ............................................................................................68 Vision ...............................................................................................................68 Initiatives and Action Plan ....................................................................................72 IV. CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ROADMAP PROJECT 73 UW Strategic Roadmap | 43 Appendix I Current Stafﬁng Allocations for UW Information Management and Administrative Systems Introduction This appendix shows May 2008 stafﬁng levels for the development, maintenance, and support of UW information management and administrative systems and services managed by the Ofﬁce of Information Management (OIM) and the supporting technical infrastructure managed by UW Technology. OIM directs information management and administrative systems throughout the UW and is responsible for the development, maintenance, and support of central administrative applications and information management services. For more information about OIM see: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/ UW Technology provides information technology, networking, and services to the UW community. UW Technology is responsible for the infrastructure that supports the UW’s central administrative applications. For more information about UW Technology see: www.washington.edu/uwtech/ Staffing Support for Information Management and Administrative Systems Staff Allocation by Activity Type OIM staff support for information management and administrative systems (IM/AS) is allocated among the following three activities: • Production Support refers to work that keeps the systems running on a daily basis, including response to time-critical issues such as program logic errors and data exceptions. Production support staff deals with issues as they arise to keep the systems running correctly. Maintenance includes projects that adapt the system to changes in business rules and to new externally or internally mandated requirements. It also includes projects that implement process improvements, keep the systems technically current, and ﬁx non-critical bugs. Development includes activities that extend existing processes, add new functionality, or convert existing processes to new technology. • • 44 | UW Strategic Roadmap The following chart shows how staff time is allocated between production support, maintenance, and development activities. IM/AS Staff Allocation by Activity Type (94.5 FTE) Prod Support 45.60 FTE Maintenance 20.70 FTE Development 28.20 FTE Overview of Functional Areas As of September 2008, the Ofﬁce of Information Management employs 94.5 staff in direct support of UW information management and administrative systems in the following functional areas: Information Management • • Application Integration Services Decision Support Services Administrative Systems • • • • • • Finance Student Human Resources/Payroll Alumni/Development University Services Application Processing and Coordination Project Support • • Project Services Portfolio Management UW Strategic Roadmap | 45 The following chart shows how stafﬁng resources are allocated among the functional areas. The Administrative Systems area includes strategic projects such as the Financial Desktop Initiative (FDI) and Electronic Faculty Effort and Cost Sharing (eFECS). The Project Support area is comprised of project services staff, including those that provide portfolio management support and services such as usability, technical documentation, and project support. Staff Allocation by Functional Area (94.5 FTE) Portfolio Management Application Integration Services Decision Support Services Information Management: Information Management: Application Integration Services 7 FTE Project Services Alumni/ Development App Processing and Coord University Services HR/Payroll Decision Support Services 7 FTE Administrative Systems: Administrative Systems: (Includes Strategic Projects): Finance 27 FTE Student 14.8 FTE Finance HR/Payroll 13.4 FTE University Services 7.5 FTE App Processing and Coord 5 FTE Student Alumni/Development 4 FTE Project Support: Project Support: Project Services 7 FTE Portfolio Management 1.8 FTE Total Staff Allocation by Functional Area The following section provides more detail on OIM stafﬁng allocations for each functional area. 46 | UW Strategic Roadmap Information Management Functional Areas Application Integration Services Application Integration Services provides consistent and integrated data across subject areas and spanning the life cycle of activities. It also provides support for distributed application development using service-oriented techniques. Application Integration Services Staffing (7 FTE) Prod Support 0.7 FTE Maintenance 0.8 FTE Development 5.5 FTE Decision Support Services Decision Support Services provides development and support for the Enterprise Data Warehouse and business intelligence and analytical tools for timely access to data for decision making. Decision Support Services Staffing (7 FTE) Prod Support 1.2 FTE Maintenance 1.0 FTE Development 4.8 FTE UW Strategic Roadmap | 47 Administrative Systems Functional Areas Finance Systems The ﬁnance systems include central ﬁnancial accounting, budgeting, procurement, and payables. These systems are driven by transaction input from business users across the University. On average, 200,000 transactions are accepted each month from business users. An additional 300,000 are accepted from central ofﬁce staff and other interfacing systems. This base of 500,000 transactions is “exploded” into an average of 2.2 million records each month (i.e., for each single-entry transaction, the system might generate numerous “backside” transactions). In addition, transaction numbers climb even higher during peaks in processing that occur during ﬁscal closing, salary revisions, and other high-demand periods. The procurement systems support requisitions and payment for goods and services totaling over $1.1 billion per year. The JDE Grants Receivables system takes in $1.1 billion per year from grant sponsors. UW users access ﬁnancial transaction data and reports through the Web-based My Financial Desktop application. Finance Systems Staffing ( 27 FTE) Prod Support 13.6 FTE Maintenance 5.1 FTE Development 8.3 FTE Student Systems The student systems support core student administrative functions such as admissions, registration, permanent records, ﬁnancial aid, and tuition collection, as well as many ancillary functions. The student systems retain the ofﬁcial academic records for 761,000 UW students—every student who has attended the UW since 1981. The Web-based student registration system handles over 500 transactions each minute during peak registration 48 | UW Strategic Roadmap periods. The student systems generally account for 60 to 75 percent of the total daily load of 200,000 to 900,000 transactions on the administrative mainframe. Student Systems Staffing (14.8 FTE) Prod Support 8.3 FTE Maintenance 5.2 FTE Development 1.3 FTE HR/Payroll Systems In a typical two-week payroll cycle, The HR/payroll systems distribute $60 million in pay to the University’s 35,000 employees. The HR/payroll systems pay out $1.6 billion annually— 85 percent to direct deposit—and distribute 50,000 W-2’s each year. HR/Payroll Systems Staffing (13.4 FTE) Prod Support 9.0 FTE Maintenance 3.8 FTE Development 0.6 FTE UW Strategic Roadmap | 49 University Services The University Services functional area includes the administrative systems used by Facilities Services, Transportation, Environmental Health and Safety, UW Technology, and other units. University Services Staffing (7.5 FTE) Prod Support 3.0 FTE Maintenance 3.3 FTE Development 1.2 FTE Applications Processing and Coordination The Applications Processing and Coordination functional area supports batch processing and report production for all of the administrative systems supported. Application Integration Services Staffing (7 FTE) Prod Support 0.7 FTE Maintenance 0.8 FTE Development 5.5 FTE 50 | UW Strategic Roadmap Alumni/Development System The alumni/development system supports the computing needs of University Advancement through the SunGard BSR Advance system. It also supports a locally developed reporting application and customized interfaces to other UW administrative systems. The alumni/development system processed 110,000 gifts in the last two weeks of “Campaign UW: Creating Futures” and recorded a total of $2.68 billion in donations during the eight-year campaign. Alumni/Development System Staffing (4 FTE) Prod Support 3 FTE Maintenance 1 FTE Development 0 FTE Project Support Functional Areas Project Services Project Services provides project management, quality assurance, technical writing, and usability services for enterprise-wide projects. Stafﬁng for the strategic projects such as FDI and eFECS are accounted for in the Administrative Systems Functional Area. Project Services Staffing (7 FTE) Prod Support 1.0 FTE Maintenance 0.5 FTE Development 5.5 FTE UW Strategic Roadmap | 51 Portfolio Management Portfolio Management includes support for project intake, oversight, and prioritization that achieves the right mix of tactical and strategic projects for the UW. Portfolio Management Staffing (1.8 FTE) Prod Support .8 FTE Maintenance 0 FTE Development 1 FTE Staffing Support for Technical Infrastructure UW Technology employs 23.8 staff members to support the technical infrastructure for the University’s administrative systems and information management services. This infrastructure includes: • • • • Servers, storage, and other hardware Operating systems including Microsoft Windows, Server, UNIX, and Unisys Clearpath MCP Database management systems including Microsoft SQL Server, Oracle, Sybase, Informix, and Unisys DMSII Application, management, and monitoring tools The infrastructure staff provides the following support: • Application support and engineering —focusing primarily on the Windows Server environment, providing in-depth consulting expertise in new and emerging aspects of this environment, as well as support for integrating best-of-breed packages such as Ariba and JD Edwards. Database administration —supporting the design, implementation, and operation of database environments across multiple server platforms. Windows/UNIX infrastructure —involving the speciﬁcation, installation, conﬁguration, and ongoing support of several hundred Windows and Unix servers. • • 52 | UW Strategic Roadmap • • Storage Services—focusing on the management of enterprise disk storage and backup services across all administrative system environments. MCP infrastructure —involving the conﬁguration, monitoring, and ongoing support of the mainframe systems that service numerous core administrative applications. This area also serves as a technical consulting resource for the mainframe environment and supports environmental and operational software such as job scheduling and tape management. Identity and Access Management—critical to ensuring easy and convenient access to Web-based resources and services and a consistent user experience. It provides the infrastructure necessary to enable use of a single user identiﬁcation and password to log on to most systems, access to appropriate resources, and support for portal services that tailor content to each individual user. Outreach —ensures that UW Technology engineering services and expertise are successfully applied in support of the University of Washington’s mission. Helps to establish and build collaborative relationships with customers, vendors, administrators, and other technical units. MyUW Portal —a portal for accessing a wide variety of UW information and services, including student and employee personal information. MyUW provides access to specially tailored Web resources based on roles at the University and personal preferences. • • • The following chart shows how the infrastructure support staff currently is allocated. Technical Infrastructure Support Staffing (UW Technology) (23.8 FTE) Windows/Unix 7.0 FTE Outreach MyUW Portal Storage Services Application Engineering Windows/Unix MCP Eng (mainframe) 4.5 FTE Database Services 4.25 FTE Identity/Access Mgmt 4 FTE Identity/Access Mgmt Storage Services 1.75 FTE MyUW Portal 1.2 FTE Outreach 1.0 FTE MCP Eng (mainframe) Database Services Application Engineering 0.1 FTE UW Strategic Roadmap | 53 Appendix II History and Context of UW Information Management and Administrative Systems Prior Information Management and Administrative Systems Strategy The University of Washington’s previous strategy for information management and administrative systems evolved through a series of institutional decisions made over the past 30 years. A key decision was to channel limited resources towards technology that supports research and other computing priorities. This strategy enabled the UW to become a recognized technology leader and gave it a competitive edge in discovery and learning. However, the strategy has resulted in decades of underinvestment in information management and administrative systems. In order to maximize the limited funding available, the University’s strategy for its administrative systems was to incrementally renew and extend its existing systems. While the University has been able to sustain its systems with minimal investment for many years, the core systems are now decades old and no longer support its current business needs. Efforts to enhance and extend these systems have gone as far as they can go. The University’s previous strategy is outlined in the “Strategic Choices for Administrative Computing” document, dated April 2003. See: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/choices/ The strategy called for: • • • • • Modernizing and extending core legacy systems (HR/payroll, ﬁnance, student) Transforming business practices to improve how people do their work Investing in best of breed systems for speciﬁc functional areas (build or buy) Providing access to information using data warehouse approaches Developing and integrating middleware that is critical to creating a user-friendly, Webbased experience, including personalization (MyUW), authentication (UW NetID), and authorization (ASTRA) The strategy also entailed incrementally implementing the vision outlined in the “UW Information Services Strategy.” See: www.washington.edu/computing/directions/iss.html The vision was to deliver a rich array of resources to the University community anytime and anywhere via a Web portal that provided a customized view for each individual, based on that person’s roles and responsibilities. 54 | UW Strategic Roadmap More history of administrative computing is included in the Strategic Choices document Appendix IV: History and Context of Administrative Computing at the University of Washington. See: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/choices/AppendixIV.history.4.29.pdf IS Futures Task Force In March 2006, Provost Phyllis Wise created the Future of Information Systems (IS Futures) Task Force to take a comprehensive, ﬁve-to-ten-year view of information technology needs and strategies for addressing them. The committee gathered data from faculty, staff, and students; interviewed stakeholders on institutional trends and future IT needs; convened panels of business leaders and IT specialists from other universities; surveyed other universities on best practices; and did other research. The task force’s January 19, 2007 Future of Information Systems Task Force Final Report identiﬁed the following key challenges: • • The UW’s current information technology (IT) structure is fragmented, with responsibilities, decision making, and accountability spread across many different units. The UW currently lacks a clear vision or institutional strategy for information technology. There is no institutional context for prioritizing projects or allocating resources and no framework for understanding how individual projects ﬁt into a long-term strategy. IT funding is inconsistent, allocated in a piecemeal fashion, and inequitable. Analytic data is lacking or difﬁcult to acquire. Data storage and management is not uniﬁed or coordinated. To compensate for missing functionality in core administrative systems, UW staff are engaged in daily heroics, cobbling together time-consuming workarounds. • • • To address these challenges, the report recommended that the UW consider creating an Ofﬁce of Information Management to be responsible for information management and administrative systems and coordinate the integration of information systems and services throughout the UW. Other key recommendations included: • • • Be proactive in creating and maintaining information and technology systems that support goals and core functions. Allocate baseline biennial funding for technology in all of the core areas: academics, research, administration, and medicine. Allocate consistent funding to maintain and support a baseline and ensure a competitive advantage through information systems in designated priority areas. For more information about the IS Futures Task Force ﬁndings and recommendations, and to read the ﬁnal task force report, see the task force Web site. See: http://depts.washington.edu/isfuture/index.shtml UW Strategic Roadmap | 55 Office of Information Management In response to the IS Futures Task Force recommendations and input from deans and other key stakeholders, the Provost and the Vice President for UW Technology created a new Ofﬁce of Information Management (OIM) in November 2006. The ofﬁce was created to achieve: • Direct alignment of authority over functional organization business practices, policy, resources, and priorities with the UW’s core information management and information systems resources and capabilities The powerful alignment of information systems and information management staff and services across the University Far greater coordination of resources, priorities, and directions across UW units A true information management approach that supports the University’s growing need for information for strategic directions and daily operations Better and more powerful teamwork across UW units A holistic and collaborative approach to building the future of the UW’s information management and information systems A strong UW focus on and priority for information systems and information management • • • • • • OIM is headed by the Vice Provost for Information Management/Chief Information Ofﬁcer, who reports to the Provost. The VP-IM/CIO directs information management and administrative systems across the UW and provides leadership in development and management of systems and applications. The following units were merged to create OIM: • • Administrative Information Services (AIS), from UW Technology The Strategic Initiatives Ofﬁce (SIO), from the Ofﬁce of the Executive Vice President For more information about OIM, see www.washington.edu/provost/oim/ In addition, to ensure coordination of information management and administrative systems throughout the UW, the following dual reporting relationships were created: • • Information systems teams/people throughout the Ofﬁce of the Provost have a dual reporting relationship to the VP-IM/CIO and their own vice provost. College and school-level information systems and information management teams have a dual reporting relationship to the VP-IM/CIO and their deans/chancellors. 56 | UW Strategic Roadmap One of the key initial charges to OIM was to gather input from key stakeholders across the University on current challenges with the UW’s information management and administrative systems. OIM conducted a discovery/assessment process in spring 2007, interviewing deans, vice provosts, vice presidents, computing directors, administrators, and other key stakeholders. More than 700 comments were collected from these meetings and organized into four broad themes. A summary of the input collected is available in the “Emerging Themes from Discovery/Assessment Meetings” document, on OIM’s Web site. See: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/EmergingThemes_May2007.pdf Another key charge, which came in response to input from the Board of Deans, the Information Management Advisory Committee, and other key stakeholders, was for OIM to initiate a comprehensive strategic planning effort for information management and administrative systems. The result of that work is the UW Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap). (Development of the Roadmap is described further in Appendix III.) UW Strategic Roadmap | 57 Appendix III The Strategic Roadmap Project: Developing the Roadmap Project Objectives and Scope The objective of the University of Washington Strategic Roadmap for Information Management and Administrative Systems (Roadmap) project was to deﬁne a vision for the future of information management and administrative systems (IM/AS) at the University of Washington, aligned with the institution’s business goals and priorities, and to develop an action plan for achieving this vision. The Roadmap was created to be the UW’s strategic plan for IM/AS. The Roadmap was initiated in the fall of 2007 in response to the IS Futures Task force and at the request of the Board of Deans and Chancellors, Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC), and other key stakeholders. The Roadmap was designed by business owners in collaboration with the Ofﬁce of Information Management (OIM) and its constituent stakeholders. The Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC) served as the project’s steering committee. Executive sponsors included Provost Phyllis Wise and Vice President for UW Technology Ron Johnson. OIM will implement and maintain the plan, under the oversight of the I-MAC. The scope of the Roadmap was to focus on institution-wide information management and administrative systems. The Roadmap was organized around the following key areas: Governance and Partnership, including: • • • • Leadership, alignment, and strategic partnerships Prioritization and governance Guiding principles Ongoing planning process Information Management, including • • • • • • Data access Common deﬁnitions Security Common solutions, support for specialized needs Integration Leveraging distributed knowledge and expertise 58 | UW Strategic Roadmap Administrative Systems, including • • Business process improvement Core systems modernization: - Finance, procurement, budget - HR/payroll - Student and academic administration, including course management - Research administration - Facilities and space - Alumni/development The scope of the Roadmap project did not include: • Technical infrastructure, security middleware, desktop tools, digital libraries, or collaboration tools. These areas will be coordinated with the UW Technology strategic planning initiatives, along with overlapping areas such as the MyUW portal. Academic teaching and learning tools, which are planned and supported by UW Technology. Applications speciﬁc to individual departments such as medical center billing and clinical systems, and athletic ticketing systems. Funding solutions. • • • UW Strategic Roadmap | 59 Project Approach The following diagram provides a high-level overview of the timing and major phases of the Roadmap project, followed by an overview of the key activities in each phase: WINTER 2007 SPRING 2007 SUMMER 2007 FALL 2007 WINTER 2008 SPRING 2008 Project Planning Perform Discovery Access Current State Research Trends Deﬁne the Vision Analyze the Gap Develop Action Plan Project Planning • • Develop the project approach, organizational and decision-making structure, communication plan, team members, issue resolution structure, and meeting plans Design template deliverables for the task groups Perform Discovery • • • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders Document and organize results, identify broad themes Identify and document institutional business goals and priorities 60 | UW Strategic Roadmap Document Current State • • • • • • • Review and summarize the inventory of current systems (including technology used, number of users, age, and a stability assessment) Review and summarize projects in progress or projects previously submitted for funding and approval Identify resources required to support the current environment Identify key business processes Summarize relevant data from previous studies including discovery/assessment meetings, the IS Futures Task Force ﬁndings, and other relevant recent studies Conduct additional interviews and work sessions as needed Develop a current-state assessment for each task group area including an analysis of what is working and of risks, challenges, and opportunities Research Trends • • Summarize previous related UW research, plans, and studies Research what other comparable institutions and the state of Washington are doing in areas such as: - Information management - Administrative systems - Governance - Guiding principles • • • Research technical trends and the state of the application software industry for higher education Research best practices and examples from third-party research organizations Summarize the analysis of trends and research Deﬁne the Vision • • Develop guiding principles Work in task groups to deﬁne the vision for individual areas; coordinate across teams for consistency of vision; engage task group sponsors, deans, and other advisory groups in vision discussions Document the vision • Analyze the Gap • Compare the current-state assessment to the desired state as deﬁned in the vision and analyze the gap between the two. UW Strategic Roadmap | 61 Develop Action Plan • • • • • • Deﬁne long-term priorities and initiatives Deﬁne preferred sequencing based on priorities, dependencies, capacity, readiness, and risk Deﬁne short-term and interim solutions for each area based on overall calendar and sequencing Develop a sequenced roadmap to achieve the vision Deﬁne a governance and responsibility model Develop an ongoing, repeatable planning process Project Structure The Roadmap project engaged more than 170 stakeholders representing schools, colleges, campuses, medical centers, deans, faculty, centralized support functions, administrative staff, and technology managers. Working teams of participants were divided into nine task groups focused on three speciﬁc areas: • • • Administrative Systems, including facilities/space, ﬁnance/budget/procurement, HR/ payroll, student administration, research administration, and alumni/development Information Management, including decision support and integration/infrastructure Governance Task groups were led by respected business leaders with guidance from sponsors. Each task group included 10-20 team members plus a support team of staff and facilitators. (For a list of participants please see Appendix IV.) Task group work was overseen by a Roadmap Working Team that included business leaders representing all major areas of the institution, including the leads of each task group. The Roadmap Working Team took the work of the task groups, integrated their ﬁndings and conclusions, and established overall priorities based on beneﬁts, risks, and support for the institutional goals. The work was also reviewed by the Information Management and Administrative Systems Technology Advisory Group (IM/AS TAG), that included senior technology leaders from OIM, UW Technology, schools, and campuses. The IM/AS TAG provided technical review and input into the process and the recommendations. The recommendations from the Roadmap Working Team were presented for review and approval to the Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC), in its role as project steering committee. 62 | UW Strategic Roadmap The following diagram shows how the Roadmap project was organized. Executive Sponsors PhyllisExecutive Sponsor : Wise/Ron Johnson IM/AS Technology Advisory Technical Group Project Project Management Team Team Steering Committee Steering (I-MAC) Roadmap Roadmap Team Working Team Administrative Systems Task Groups FACILITIES/ SPACE FINANCE/ BUDGET/ PROCUREMENT HR/PAYROLL RESEARCH ADMIN Information Management Task Groups DECISION SUPPORT INTEGRATION/ INFRASTRUCTURE Governance Task Group GOVERNANCE STUDENT ADMIN ALUMNI/ DEVELOPMNT Further details on the objectives, scope, approach, organization, and roles is provided in the Project Charter document which is available on the Roadmap Web site. See: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/ Project Phase Results Discovery Process The ﬁrst step in the Roadmap effort was to gather input from key stakeholders across the University community on key challenges in UW information management and administrative systems. Deans, administrators, computing directors, vice provosts, vice presidents, and other key stakeholders were interviewed during the winter/spring of 2007 as part of this discovery/assessment effort. More than 700 comments were collected and divided into four broad themes. Those themes are summarized below. A complete list of themes and of groups interviewed is available on the OIM Web site. See www.washington.edu/provost/oim/reports/EmergingThemes_May2007.pdf UW Strategic Roadmap | 63 Summary of Themes Strategy, Policy, and Partnership Moving forward will take strong leadership. There is agreement that 80 percent of business processes could share a common solution while still allowing for specialized, local needs. Addressing major challenges will require additional resources. The UW needs to clarify the roles, responsibilities, and relationships of its IT governance structure, including the various IT and priority-setting groups. Comments from stakeholders: “UW needs to manage itself as a ‘whole’ institution.” “Everyone is doing the same work in each school, which is not a smart use of resources; we’d rather spend time doing things that truly are unique to our own school.” “Have a central place to identify which schools are doing workarounds; identify commonalities and reduce duplicative work.” Information Management Operational and strategic decision making relies on accurate and consistent institutional data. The ability to track money, people, and space across the entire information life cycle is critical. The UW needs broader, timelier access to data and analytical tools and consistent, accurate data. Data needs to be integrated across all subject areas and span the life cycle of activities. Comments from stakeholders: “It is not clear whether the data we get is accurate. If we ask two different people, we may get two different answers.” “We need analytical data. We need the ability to see a broad ‘dashboard’ view of the data and the ability to manipulate the data to see both transaction and summary levels. This will enable us to tell customers where their money goes.” “It can be difﬁcult to know which questions to ask because a term (e.g., ‘faculty’) may have a different meaning to different people. It shouldn’t vary across units.” Business Processes and Information Systems Our core central systems (ﬁnancial, HR/payroll, and student) do not meet institutional needs and need to be replaced. Daily heroics, shadow systems, and other workarounds lead to inefﬁciencies and loss of productivity. Business units need to start working collaboratively to identify ways to streamline business processes and create consistencies across the University. 64 | UW Strategic Roadmap Comments from stakeholders: “We need to reassess our existing business processes in light of new technology.” “Weigh the need to have ﬂexibility versus having a consistent process across campus.” “We need to replace our core legacy systems ‘cold turkey’ and invest in a new system. We can no longer afford to keep prolonging them. It seems that too many resources are tied up in maintenance for these antiquated systems.” Information Architecture The University needs to build a developer community to leverage technical knowledge and expertise across units. In addition, a distributed development environment will enable access to central services while supporting local development to meet specialized needs. As new systems and information architectures are developed, security must remain a top priority. Comments from stakeholders: “We need to standardize the programming language and a standard skill set for programmers, etc. Different units are building systems in different languages, which has lead to a proliferation of shadow systems. These skill sets are not necessarily portable across UW.” “We need a ‘continuous improvement’ approach so we are always keeping up with new technologies and ensuring the system is viable for years to come.” “We’ve created so many systems to support various administrative functions—they all work—but they are not connected in any way.” Current State Assessment Each of the nine Strategic Roadmap task groups conducted an in-depth evaluation of the current state of IM/AS from their area’s perspective. Each group assessed what is working well today and evaluated potential risks and challenges with the existing systems. The groups also examined business and technical trends and best practices. The outcome was a current state assessment for each area, summarized below. Detailed summaries and the complete current state documents are available on the Web. See: www.washington.edu/provost/oim/roadmap/report/current-state.html#complete “We need to replace our core legacy systems ‘cold turkey’ and invest in a new system. We can no longer afford to keep prolonging them. It seems that too many resources are tied up in maintenance for these antiquated systems.” UW Strategic Roadmap | 65 Summary of Current State Findings Information Management Managing information is key to decision making and administering day-to-day business activities at the UW. Information Management (IM) provides technology and infrastructure to support the management of information, including data and services. Data Access, Data Integration. Information is trapped in central systems. It is difﬁcult to obtain permission to access central data stores, and the access usually is platform-centric. Once obtained, the data is not well understood, generally not scalable, and not integrated with information from other applications. To compensate for these deﬁciencies, local shadow systems store redundant, inconsistent, and sensitive data. Business owners rely on this data to make decisions, but they question its accuracy. In addition, the number of shadow systems raises concerns about data security and privacy. Innovation and Business Agility. Our central infrastructure is seen as holding back innovation. We are unable to keep up with changing business needs due to the complexity of our technology. We have many technical and business people who are resistant to change. We are a large, decentralized institution and yet we do not provide the kind of central infrastructure that enables change at the edges. Our culture is evolving to embrace change. There are many people who want change and will help to make it happen. Newer technologies and techniques do exist that can dramatically increase agility and foster innovation. Collaboration. There has been a lack of collaboration between central and departmental information technology and information management. Without knowing what others are working on or what already is available, we pour time and effort into re-inventing the wheel. We are beginning to see improvements. The USER (University Services Renewal) methodology has involved business users in project development. OIM has created a new Community and Partnership Development division to identify partnership opportunities, common resources, and existing solutions to support information systems and projects. RESTful Web-service architecture and Resource Oriented Architecture (ROA) encourage collaboration and interoperability between systems in disparate environments. Technical Complexity and Maintainability. We are overwhelmed by the complexity of the technical environment. Understanding the effects of even small changes is becoming inordinately difﬁcult. Old technologies aren’t phased out fast enough, making our systems more and more challenging to maintain. Creating an information architecture that stores our information in the proper places and makes it easy for users to ﬁnd and understand it is the key to realizing the full potential of our information assets. 66 | UW Strategic Roadmap Administrative Systems The UW has been incrementally investing in its administrative systems, particularly through the USER Project. USER projects such as the Online Payroll Update System, Employee Self Service, Financial Desktop Initiative, Online Work/Leave System, and others have provided user-friendly functionality missing from the core systems that has improved productivity for scores of UW faculty, staff, and students. The UW has also incrementally invested in the Enterprise Data Warehouse, which is making progress towards providing access to data for decision making. More recently, the Technology Advisory Committees and other decision-making groups have made a positive start towards project prioritization and portfolio management to help ensure that the UW is working on the right projects. The UW has been investing in projects recommended by the Information Management Advisory Committee. In addition, Alumni Advancement, Facility Services, and Research Administration are upgrading their major systems. Challenges The UW’s legacy systems are nearing the end of their lifespan. They were designed for an academic climate and funding model that no longer exists. Yesterday’s rigid technical environment isn’t ﬂexible enough to adapt to today’s changing and expanding business model. This gap has led to missing both functionality and key data. Our budget system doesn’t meet current objectives of resource planning and allocation. Major functionality is missing in our receivables, capitalization, and ﬁnancial reporting systems. Accrual accounting is neither timely nor available at the department level. There is no central tool for forecasting and planning. The UW’s payroll system does not meet current payroll business rules. We do not have a human resources system. Missing central data has led to a proliferation of shadow systems and lack of integration. Units across the UW are duplicating processes and data, which results in inefﬁcient use of staff time and is a data security risk. There are no institutional data deﬁnitions to ensure a common understanding of data being used. There are a growing number of requests for reporting information at the enterprise level, but the UW’s stand-alone systems do not allow the integration necessary to answer many questions. Security access policies are inconsistent and not well understood. Governance Current State There are more than 20 committees focused on IM/AS prioritization and decision making, but they operate independently and inconsistently and without clear decision-making pathways and authority. Roles and responsibilities are not well deﬁned, not all IM/AS areas are covered, and membership is not always representational, as it tends to be weighted toward central administration. There is no strategic framework to guide decision making. While the Information Management Advisory Committee (I-MAC) does provide a formalized process for approving and prioritizing enterprise level IM/AS projects, the intake and prioritization UW Strategic Roadmap | 67 processes are viewed as cumbersome. Portfolio management is the process by which investment decisions are made to maximize value and align work with strategic goals. It includes selecting, prioritizing, and monitoring results across an enterprise. Portfolio management is practiced in few areas. There is no enterprise portfolio management strategy for all IM/AS projects and applications; however, it is recognized that portfolio management could provide a prioritization framework. In addition, this portfolio management strategy needs to be supported by a Project Management Ofﬁce that can track and monitor the portfolio and provide portfolio analysis as well as project planning, oversight, and best practices. There is widespread recognition of the value of cross-unit collaboration on project work, but no frameworks exist to allow units to develop collaborative proposals, share resources, and establish working partnerships around IM/AS projects. Investment in IM/AS has been relatively minimal and the funding year to year has been unpredictable. Investments often are made reactively and in a piecemeal fashion, with compliance risk being a major decider, as opposed to investing in projects that align with the University’s strategic direction. Funding for IM/AS In the last decade the University has channeled much of its limited resources towards technology infrastructure and investments that support research and learning. As a consequence, the UW’s infrastructure is excellent, and we have kept our competitive edge in research, as evidenced by the UW continuing to be the top public university in federal research funding since 1974. At the same time, there has been a history of underinvestment in information management and administrative systems. Operational (base) support for the administrative systems is at the bare minimum to keep the systems going, and funding for enhancement projects and new systems has been small and unpredictable. In the last ten years the USER Initiative provided about $20 million for HR/Payroll, Financial Desktop, and SAGE (research administration) projects. In the three years of its existence, the I-MAC proposal process has allocated about $12.5 million to projects. I-MAC has tended to recommend projects that address a compliance gap, and over half of its total funding allocation has been for research administrative systems. Vision Each Task Group worked with its sponsors to deﬁne a vision for its area. The following is a summary. 68 | UW Strategic Roadmap Administrative Systems Vision The UW’s administrative systems will fully support this institution’s complex and evolving business needs, improving the productivity and efﬁciency of people at every level of the institution. The systems will provide the full range of functionality required to meet most of the needs of units and departments, signiﬁcantly reducing the need for shadow systems to compensate for inadequate functionality. The systems will be ﬂexible and agile enough to keep up with the UW’s changing business needs. Within 10 years the UW will have … • Replaced its aging legacy systems to: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Meet user needs for transactional efﬁciency and management information Reduce the risk of unsupportable and inﬂexible systems Improve integration across systems Improve consistency in the user experience Provide agility to support future needs Improve asset control Support a new chart of accounts and reporting structure Support comprehensive planning, allocation, and reporting, forecasting, and indirectcost recovery Provide the ability to track data centrally through its life cycle in areas such as employee records, faculty history, student activities, ﬁnancial transactions, and research Allow departments and units to easily extend core data to meet their unique needs Leverage new technologies Eliminate redundant and inefﬁcient processes Document and share best practices in order to realize the greatest efﬁciencies and maximize effectiveness Integrate workﬂow management to efﬁciently coordinate work across units Save resources and optimize use of our limited resources Guide faculty, researchers, and staff through compliance and administrative processes Develop feedback and quality assurance solutions that continuously improve our business processes Foster a culture of open communication and collaboration between departmental and central IT and between business owners and developers Improved business processes to: UW Strategic Roadmap | 69 Information Management Vision The UW will provide access to accurate information to support effective decision making and advance the University’s strategic goals. A full suite of scalable and robust information delivery tools will be provided that supports on-demand and real-time access to data and enables users to easily search, ﬁnd, develop, and run reports. The UW will develop common infrastructure, architecture, and support services necessary to integrate and streamline departmental and institutional information and processes. Data management and integration will provide a streamlined data management environment that integrates data across the University. The UW will develop a comprehensive and trusted enterprise data warehouse recording the life cycle of data across all major business areas. The UW will develop the technology environment necessary to enable collaborative development across UW departments and units. Within 10 years the UW will have … • Developed data structures and analytical tools to: • • • • • • • Provide a comprehensive and trusted enterprise data warehouse recording the life cycle of data across all major business areas Provide timely, accurate, and integrated data, with appropriate privacy protection Support effective decision making and advance the University’s strategic goals Support effective planning, measurement, and cost recovery Provide secure and reliable infrastructure and services Provide technologies that are integrated, open, personalized, consistent, and responsive to the needs of the University community. The UW has the right technology to allow its diverse user community to easily search, ﬁnd, develop, and run reports. Provide transparent, agile, and open standards-based access to everything digital, anywhere, anytime, with any device. The UW’s next-generation technology environment will be ﬂexible, scalable, and easy to maintain and update. It will be designed and developed with appropriate fault tolerance and cost efﬁciencies in mind and will strike a balance between in-house and outsourced solutions to meet all user needs. Provide middleware services that advance a standard development process to make common functionality simple, reliable, and reusable Provide an environment that ensures security and privacy with clearly deﬁned policies and procedures around access, use, and retention of data Protect institutional data from loss or destruction Provide a bridge between business processes and underlying technology Developed an information architecture to: • • • • • 70 | UW Strategic Roadmap • Developed standards, best practices, and a collaborative environment to: • • Support an active, highly-trained user community that exchanges ideas, analysis, and knowledge Empower innovation at the edges and promote loosely-coupled integration between central and departmental systems Improve system maintainability Reduce technical complexity Support business agility • Implemented a rational strategy for system retirement and continual improvement to: • • • Governance The University will evolve a transparent, well understood governance framework that enables a cohesive, coordinated, and collaborative approach to decision making. This framework will ensure the involvement of key stakeholders, promote consistency across IM/AS projects, and enable holistic decision making. The UW will have a mature, open, and transparent portfolio management framework that includes projects, applications, and human resources. It will balance cost, scope, and risks across the enterprise, align resources and projects with the UW’s strategic priorities, and include both central and local resources and projects of all scopes. It will be supported by a Project Management Ofﬁce that provides portfolio analysis, project planning and oversight, and implements project management best practices. An ongoing strategic planning process will continuously evaluate and update the Roadmap to reﬂect changes in technology and in the University’s goals and priorities. There is effective human resources management for IM/AS stafﬁng that will provide effective workforce management, professional development, and succession strategies; better management of recruitment and retention; and clear roles and responsibilities across unit IM/ AS staff regarding their partnerships with OIM and each other. The UW will have developed the services, processes, structures, administrative support, and technical architecture necessary to enable community-based projects and initiatives. The UW will have evolved and maintained a predictable, sustainable investment model that supports innovation, maintenance, and renewal, advances the goals of the Roadmap, and enables the University to fully support its business needs. UW Strategic Roadmap | 71 Initiatives and Action Plan The ﬁnal step in the Roadmap project was to develop recommended initiatives and an action plan outlining timing and sequencing. The task groups ﬂeshed out recommended initiatives and timelines for each of their areas. The Roadmap Working Team then integrated and prioritized that work, and it produced the ﬁve recommended initiatives and action plan as presented in the Roadmap. A draft of the recommended initiatives and action plan was then presented in spring 2008 to the Information Management Advisory Committee, the University Technology Advisory Committee, the Board of Deans and Chancellors, and other key stakeholders. Through those discussions, the following near-term priorities were identiﬁed: • Move forward with the ﬁnancial system replacement. Begin work on a needs assessment and explore possible partnerships, including with the state, as well as other options. Join the Kuali Student partnership. Become a founding member of the Kuali Foundation student system development effort. Invest in high-value system enhancements as funding allows. Identify a long-term funding strategy to implement the Roadmap initiatives. This includes identifying an annual operating and capital investment plan for information management and administrative systems. • • • 72 | UW Strategic Roadmap Appendix IV Contributors to the Roadmap Project Executive Sponsors • • Phyllis Wise, Provost and Executive Vice President Ron Johnson, Chief Technology Ofﬁcer Sponsor • Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Ofﬁcer, Ofﬁce of Information Management Steering Committee (Information Management Advisory Committee) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • V’Ella Warren, I-MAC Chair, Senior Vice President Harry Bruce, Dean, The Information School Marilyn Cox, Vice Chancellor, Administration & Planning, UW Bothell Walter Dryfoos, Associate Vice President, Advancement Services, University Advancement James Fine, Chief Information Ofﬁcer, UW Medicine Information Technology Services Eric Godfrey, Vice Provost, Student Life Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Ofﬁcer, Ofﬁce of Information Management Ronald Johnson, Chief Technology Ofﬁcer Richard Karpen, Divisional Dean of Research and Infrastructure, College of Arts & Sciences Edward Lazowska, Bill and Melinda Gates Chair, Computer Science & Engineering Ruth Mahan, Vice Dean for Administration and Finance, UW Medicine Arthur Nowell, Dean, College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences Patrick Pow, Director, Information Technology, UW Tacoma Gary Quarfoth, Associate Vice Provost, Ofﬁce of Planning and Budgeting John Slattery, Vice Dean for Research and Graduate Education, UW Medicine Mani Soma, Associate Vice Provost for Research, Industry Relations, Ofﬁce of Research Oren Sreebny, Executive Director, Emerging Technology, UW Technology Kathryn Waddell, Executive Director, Health Sciences Administration UW Strategic Roadmap | 73 • • • Lizabeth (Betsy) Wilson, Dean, University Libraries Naomi Wilson, GPSS Student Representative Joseph Wolfgram, IT Director, UW Medicine Roadmap Working Team • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ann Anderson, Associate Vice President and Controller, Ofﬁce of Financial Management Linda Barrett, Director, Budget Operations, Ofﬁce of Planning and Budgeting Cindy Brown, Associate Vice Provost, Communications and Outreach, Ofﬁce of Information Management Elizabeth Coveney, Assistant Vice President, Human Resources Administration and Information Systems Leann Dawson, Controller, UW Medical Center Accounting Walter Dryfoos, Associate Vice President, Advancement Services, University Advancement David Eaton, Associate Vice Provost for Research, External Relations, Ofﬁce of Research Gary Farris, Director, Finance and Administration, Graduate School Rhonda Forman, Assistant Vice Provost, Ofﬁce of Academic Personnel Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Ofﬁcer, Ofﬁce of Information Management Jeanne Marie Isola, Associate Vice Provost, Strategic Projects and Portfolios, Ofﬁce of Information Management Charles Kennedy, Associate Vice President, Facilities, Finance and Facilities Susan Lawrence, Director, IT Human Resources, UW Technology Jim Loter, Associate Vice Provost, Community and Partnership Development, Ofﬁce of Information Management Todd Mildon, University Registrar, Ofﬁce of the University Registrar Alan Nygaard, Director Business Services, Capital Projects Ofﬁce Juan Pampin, Assistant Professor, Center for Digital Arts and Experimental Media Barb Peterson, Director, Finance and Administration, Department of Pathology, UW Medicine Jim Posey, Director, Institutional Research and Planning, UW Tacoma Bill Shirey, Associate Vice Provost, Business Applications, Ofﬁce of Information Management Bill Yock, Associate Vice Provost, Enterprise Information Services, Ofﬁce of Information Management 74 | UW Strategic Roadmap Facilitator: • Jeanne Marie Isola, Associate Vice Provost, Strategic Projects and Portfolios, Ofﬁce of Information Management IM/AS Technology Advisory Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Ofﬁcer, Ofﬁce of Information Management (Lead) Kirk Bailey, Chief Information Security Ofﬁcer, UW Technology John Drew, Director, Computing and Information Resources, Graduate School Terry Gray, Associate Vice President, University Technology Strategy, UW Technology Jim Kresl, Director, ORIS, Ofﬁce of Research Tom Lewis, Director, Campus Engagement, Learning and Scholarly Technologies, UW Technology Jim Loter, Associate Vice Provost, Community and Partnership Development, Ofﬁce of Information Management Erik Lundberg, Laboratory Director, Computer Science and Engineering Scott Macklin, Chief Technology Ofﬁcer, College of Education Sid McHarg, Director, Enterprise Platforms, UW Technology Patrick Pow, Director, Information Technology, UW Tacoma Gary Prohaska, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Bill Shirey, Associate Vice Provost, Business Applications, Ofﬁce of Information Management Oren Sreebny, Executive Director, Emerging Technology, UW Technology Lori Stevens, Director, Distributed Systems, UW Technology Ian Taylor, Manager, UW Technology Betsy Tippens, Director, Information Systems, UW Bothell Joseph Wolfgram, IT Director, UW Medicine Bill Yock, Associate Vice Provost, Enterprise Information Services, Ofﬁce of Information Management Facilitators: • • Jackie Bardsley, Consultant, Ofﬁce of Information Management Maureen Noonan, Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management UW Strategic Roadmap | 75 Project Management Team • • • • • • Jeanne Marie Isola, Associate Vice Provost, Strategic Projects and Portfolios, Ofﬁce of Information Management (Project Manager) Jackie Bardsley, Consultant, Ofﬁce of Information Management Pat Bonner, Senior Project Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Ofﬁcer, Ofﬁce of Information Management Nancy Rauhauser, Senior Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Mary Syre, Systems Analyst Software Engineer, Ofﬁce of Information Management Administrative Systems Task Groups Co-Leads: • • Jeanne Marie Isola, Associate Vice Provost, Strategic Projects and Portfolios, Ofﬁce of Information Management Bill Shirey, Associate Vice Provost, Business Applications, Ofﬁce of Information Management University Advancement Sponsor: • Connie Kravas, Vice President, University Advancement Participants: • • • • • • • • • • Walter Dryfoos, Associate Vice President, Advancement Services, University Advancement (Lead) Sue Brockman, Director, Marketing Communications & Revenue Development, UW Alumni Association Jaime Bruton, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Dondi Cupp, Assistant Vice President, Corporate and Foundation Relations Elise Daniel, E-Communications Marketing Manager, UW Marketing Shawn Drew, Director, Information Management, Ofﬁce of Development Ed Erickson, Assistant Director, Fund Development, Intercollegiate Athletics Mark Lanum, Associate Director, Relationship Management, DRRM Jamie Martin-Almy, Development Ofﬁcer, UW Tacoma Key Nuttall, Director, Strategy & New Media, UW Marketing 76 | UW Strategic Roadmap • • • • • • Tracy Ostrem, Assistant Dean, Development, Arts & Sciences Karl Otto, Associate Director, Development, UW Medicine Jackie Owens, Associate Director, Prospect Research and Tracking, UW Medicine Nicole Pargoff, Annual Fund Ofﬁcer, Michael G. Foster School of Business Lisa Thomas, Regional Advancement Ofﬁcer, Regional Gift Programs Tricia Thompson, Associate Vice President, UW Marketing, External Affairs, University Advancement Facilitator: • Pat Bonner, Senior Project Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Facilities/Space Sponsors: • • • Richard Chapman, Associate Vice President, Capital Projects Ofﬁce Charles Kennedy, Associate Vice President, Facilities Services Colleen Pike, Director, Capital and Space Planning Participants: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Charles Kennedy, Associate Vice President, Facilities Services (Lead) Alan Nygaard, Director Business Services, Capital Projects Ofﬁce (Lead) James Angelosante, Director, Finance and Administration for Health Sciences Michael Anthony, Executive Director, Management Accounting and Analysis Leita Bain, Director, Facilities, Arts & Sciences John Chapman, Executive Director, Campus Engineering & Operations, Facilities Services Richard Chapman, Associate Vice President, Capital Projects Tessa Coleman, Fiscal Specialist, UW Tacoma Facilities Services Peter Dewey, Facilities Planning Ofﬁcer, Facilities Services Heidi Dlubac, Facilities Assistant to the Dean, Engineering Brent Holterman, Manager, University Services, Ofﬁce of Information Management Jack Klebeck, Assistant Director, Health Sciences Academic Services & Facilities Jeff Linn, Manager Program Operations, Capital Space & Planning Rob Lubin, Assistant Director, Facilities & Operations, Housing and Food Services Greg Miller, Senior Accountant, Engineering Paul Reed Smith, Facilities Services UW Strategic Roadmap | 77 • • • • • Stephanie Steppe, Director, Health Sciences Services & Facilities Pam Stewart, Executive Director, UW Technology Sarah Tipton, Arts & Sciences Karen VanDusen, Director, Environmental Health and Safety Paula Walker, Director, Space Planning, Library Facilitator: • Nancy Rauhauser, Senior Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Finance, Budget, and Procurement Sponsors: • • • Ruth Mahan, Vice Dean, Administration and Finance, UW Medicine Gary Quarfoth, Associate Vice Provost, Ofﬁce of Planning and Budgeting V’Ella Warren, Senior Vice President; Treasurer, Board of Regents Treasury Ofﬁce Participants: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ann Anderson, Assistant Vice President and Controller, Ofﬁce of Financial Management (Lead) Dave Asher, Director of Finance and Planning, Educational Outreach Sue Camber, Associate Vice President, Grants and Contracts Mary Clark, Assistant Dean for Planning and Administration, Information School Leann Dawson, Controller, UWMC Accounting Amy Floit, Budget Analyst, Budget Ofﬁce Jeff Follman, Associate Controller, Financial Management Eric Hausman, Director, Finance and Business Services, Facilities Services Tim McAllister, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Nancy McDonald, Director, Administration and Finance, UW Medicine Linda Nelson, Director of Finance and Administration, Arts & Sciences Peter Rackers, Director of Finance and Planning, Architecture and Urban Planning Lawrie Robertson, Director, Finance & Administration, Public Health Jan Rutledge, Associate Vice Chancellor for Finance & Administration, UW Tacoma Jan Sullivan, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Karen Thomas, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Facilitator: 78 | UW Strategic Roadmap • Lisa Yeager, Senior Project Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Human Resources/Payroll Sponsors: • • • Cheryl Cameron, Vice Provost, Academic Personnel Mindy Kornberg, Vice President, Human Resources V’Ella Warren, Senior Vice President; Treasurer, Board of Regents Treasury Ofﬁce Participants: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Elizabeth Coveney, Executive Director, Human Resources Administration and Information Systems (Lead) Rhonda Forman, Director, Academic Human Resources (Lead) Vicky Anderson-Ellis, Director, Finance & Administration, Social Work Linda Braziel, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Charles Chamberlin, Senior Associate Dean, UW Libraries Curtis Colvin, Manager of Program Operations, UW Medicine Doug Divine, Operations Analyst, Academic Human Resources Bridget Doyle, Director of Academic Affairs, Public Health and Community Medicine Trish Fiacchi, Director of Human Resources, UW Tacoma Shelby Fritz, Assistant to the Vice Chancellor, UW Tacoma Cindy Gregovich, Associate Controller, Payroll Mirtha Johnson, Director Payroll Services , UW Medical Centers & UWPN Alisha LaPlante, HR Manager, Information School Susan Lawrence, Director of IT Human Resources, UW Technology Barb Peterson, Director, Finance and Administration, Department of Pathology, UW Medicine Judith Rapp, Administrator, Department of Surgery Pam Renfree, Director of Human Resources, Michael G. Foster School of Business Denise Rollin, Human Resources Director, UW Bothell Tom Sparks, Financial Administrator, Engineering Gail Viscione, Administrator, School of Pharmacy Susan Williams, Administrator, Arts & Sciences Facilitators: • Pat Bonner, Senior Project Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management UW Strategic Roadmap | 79 • Gary Prohaska, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Research Administration Sponsors: • • Mary Lidstrom, Vice Provost for Research, Ofﬁce of Research Kathryn Waddell, Director, Health Sciences Administration Participants: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • David Eaton, Associate Vice Provost for Research, Ofﬁce of Research (Lead) Kathy Bracy, Director, Ofﬁce of Research and Graduate Education, UW Medicine David Brown, Director of Finance and Business Operations, Technology Transfer Jeff Cheek, Associate Vice Provost for Research Compliance & Operations , Ofﬁce of Research Mary Heusner, Director, Research, College of Engineering Jim Kresl, Director, Ofﬁce of Research Russ McDuff, Director, School of Oceanography Dick Meisinger, Assistant Dean for Planning and New Initiatives , Ofﬁce of Research and Graduate Education, UW Medicine Diane Merz, Director, Clinical Research Budget & Billing Support Ofﬁce Karen Moe, Director & Assistant Vice Provost for Research, Ofﬁce of Research Vicky Palm, Director, Grants and Contracts, Arts &Sciences Nona Phillips, Director, Ofﬁce of Animal Welfare Elise Ralph, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Sponsored Research, UW Tacoma Tami Sadusky, Executive Director, Grants and Contracts John Streck, Ofﬁce of Research Karen VanDusen, Director, Environmental Health and Safety Facilitator: • Darcy Van Patten, Program Manager, Ofﬁce of Research Student Administration Sponsors: 80 | UW Strategic Roadmap • • • • • Eric Godfrey, Vice Provost, Student Life Sheila Edwards Lange, Vice President, Minority Affairs and Vice Provost of Diversity David Szatmary, Vice Provost, Educational Outreach Ed Taylor, Vice Provost and Dean, Undergraduate Academic Affairs V’Ella Warren, Senior Vice President; Treasurer, Board of Regents Treasury Ofﬁce Participants: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Todd Mildon, University Registrar, Ofﬁce of the University Registrar (Lead) Joan Abe, Director, Graduate Admissions and Student Services Dave Brown, UW Graduate and Professional Student Senate Susan Camber, Associate Vice President, Financial Management Hung Dang, Assistant Vice Chancellor and Registrar, Enrollment Management, UW Bothell Tyler Dockins, ASUW Alice Few, Computer Support Analyst, Institutional Research & Planning, UW Tacoma Roberta Hopkins, Director, Classroom Support Services William Jackson, Director of Academic Services, School of Law Ruth Johnston, Associate Vice President, Finance and Facilities Julie Katz, Assistant Dean, Academic Services, School of Nursing Paul LePore, Assistant Dean, Dean’s Ofﬁce, Arts &Sciences Kay Lewis, Director, Student Financial Aid Tom Lewis, Director of Campus Engagement, Learning and Scholarly Technologies, UW Technology Mariko Navin, Undergraduate Advisor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Hugh Parker, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Michelle Trudeau, Director, Student & Academic Services, Forest Resources Deborah Wiegand, Assistant Dean, Undergraduate Academic Affairs Clark Westmoreland, Executive Director of Operations, UW Educational Outreach Steve Woodard, Assistant Vice President, Ofﬁce of Minority Affairs and Diversity Karen Yuhas, Assistant Director, Housing and Food Services Facilitator: • Melissa Bravo, Project Manager, Strategic Projects and Portfolios, Ofﬁce of Information Management UW Strategic Roadmap | 81 Information Management Task Groups: Decision Support Sponsor: • Michael Eisenberg, Dean Emeritus, Information School Participants: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Bill Yock, Associate Vice Provost, Enterprise Information Services, Ofﬁce of Information Management (Lead) Paul Ahlstrom, Database & Web Analyst, UW Bothell Charles Bennett, Assistant Vice President, Finance and Facilities Bob Blum, Director of Database Services, Arts &Sciences John Drew, Director, Computing and Information Resources, Graduate School Walter Dryfoos, Associate Vice President, Advancement Services, Development and Alumni Relations Eric Elkins, Database Analyst, Institutional Research & Planning, UW Tacoma David Fray, Director, Departmental Computing, Engineering Charlene Gilder, Manager, Department Computing, Dean of Medicine Administration & Finance Phil Hoffman, Director, Ofﬁce of Institutional Studies Joe Kittleson, Director, Human Resources Information Systems Jim Kresl, Director, Ofﬁce of Research Linda Lake, Assistant Dean, Evans School of Public Affairs Nana Lowell, Director, Ofﬁce of Educational Assessment Scott Macklin, Chief Technology Ofﬁcer, College of Education Todd Mildon, University Registrar, Ofﬁce of the University Registrar Dinah Walters, Senior Systems Analyst, Finance and Facilities Decision Support Facilitators: • • Kerry Lamb, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Marcy Tufarolo, Senior Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Integration Sponsors: • Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Ofﬁcer, Ofﬁce of Information 82 | UW Strategic Roadmap Management • Scott Mah, Associate Vice President, UW Technology Participants: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Gary Prohaska, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management (Lead) Tony Chang, Integration Architect, UW Technology David Chou, Chief Technical Ofﬁcer, UW Medicine IT Services John Drew, Director, Computing and Information Services, Graduate School Shawn Drew, Director of Information Management, Ofﬁce of Development Alin Hunter, Senior Applications Systems Engineer, Ofﬁce of Information Management Peter Libbey, Software Engineer, UW Technology Tom Lewis, Director of Campus Engagement, Learning and Scholarly Technologies, UW Technology Erik Lundberg, Laboratory Director, Computer Science and Engineering Bob Morgan, Senior Technology Architect, UW Technology Paul Schurr, Ofﬁce of Information Management Peter Scott, Director, Technology & Systems Management, Minority Affairs Scott Stephenson, Senior Information Technology Architect, Ofﬁce of Information Management Lori Stevens, Director, Distributed Systems, UW Technology Ian Taylor, Manager, UW Technology Alan Westhagen, Manager, Enterprise Platforms, UW Technology Kirk Wolden-Hanson, Director, Computing, Arts &Sciences Joseph Wolfgram, IT Director, UW Medicine Bill Yock, Associate Vice Provost, Enterprise Information Services, Ofﬁce of Information Management Facilitators: • • Kerry Lamb, Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Marcy Tufarolo, Senior Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Governance Task Group Sponsors: • Sara Gomez, Vice Provost and Chief Information Ofﬁcer, Ofﬁce of Information UW Strategic Roadmap | 83 Management • • • • Ron Johnson, Chief Technology Ofﬁcer Matt O’Donnell, Dean, Engineering V’Ella Warren, Senior Vice President; Treasurer, Board of Regents Treasury Ofﬁce Phyllis Wise, Provost and Executive Vice President Participants: • • • Cindy Brown, Associate Vice Provost, Communications and Outreach, Ofﬁce of Information Management (Lead) Jim Loter, Associate Vice Provost, Community and Partnership Development, Ofﬁce of Information Management (Lead) Mary Syre, Systems Analyst Software Engineer, Ofﬁce of Information Management Facilitator: • Nancy Rauhauser, Senior Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Roadmap Report and Web Site Team • • • • • • Cindy Brown, Associate Vice Provost, Communications and Outreach, Ofﬁce of Information Management (Lead) Jackie Bardsley, Consultant, Ofﬁce of Information Management Alexis Raphael, Communications and Outreach, Ofﬁce of Information Management Nancy Rauhauser, Senior Technology Manager, Ofﬁce of Information Management Kathryn Sharpe, Communications and Outreach, Ofﬁce of Information Management and UW Technology Mary Syre, Systems Analyst Software Engineer, Ofﬁce of Information Management 84 | UW Strategic Roadmap UW Strategic Roadmap | 85